World Turned upside down

[Jazzman]

To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars, so drawing on that analogy with our current predicament, the world is not quite upside down yet. More to the point though, putting everything into the context of ‘survive or perish’, a condition our ancestors were more intimately in tune with, our paranoia has more to do with the fear of loss of those things we have merely become accustomed to holding near and dear. We have never been certain of their omniscience.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.[/quote]

There is no real consensus on when the Napoleonic Wars started, and some historians believe they were actually a continuation of wars that preceded the French Revolution in 1789, so one could argue there is an overlap with the American War of Independence which I believe ended in 1783.

As to my point, I was merely reflecting on the comment that Britain’s “world had been turned upside down” by the defeat, makes it appear an isolated incident, whereas in fact colonialism which dates back to the 15th century, led to frictions (and wars), that manifested themselves in European efforts to support the American war effort against the British. So disappointment at defeat was inevitable, but I’m not sure Britain’s world was lost. They continued to dominate over one quarter of the world until the 20th century.

As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.[/quote]

There is no real consensus on when the Napoleonic Wars started, and some historians believe they were actually a continuation of wars that preceded the French Revolution in 1789, so one could argue there is an overlap with the American War of Independence which I believe ended in 1783.

As to my point, I was merely reflecting on the comment that Britain’s “world had been turned upside down” by the defeat, makes it appear an isolated incident, whereas in fact colonialism which dates back to the 15th century, led to frictions (and wars), that manifested themselves in European efforts to support the American war effort against the British. So disappointment at defeat was inevitable, but I’m not sure Britain’s world was lost. They continued to dominate over one quarter of the world until the 20th century.

As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.[/quote]

There is no real consensus on when the Napoleonic Wars started, and some historians believe they were actually a continuation of wars that preceded the French Revolution in 1789, so one could argue there is an overlap with the American War of Independence which I believe ended in 1783.

As to my point, I was merely reflecting on the comment that Britain’s “world had been turned upside down” by the defeat, makes it appear an isolated incident, whereas in fact colonialism which dates back to the 15th century, led to frictions (and wars), that manifested themselves in European efforts to support the American war effort against the British. So disappointment at defeat was inevitable, but I’m not sure Britain’s world was lost. They continued to dominate over one quarter of the world until the 20th century.

As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.[/quote]

There is no real consensus on when the Napoleonic Wars started, and some historians believe they were actually a continuation of wars that preceded the French Revolution in 1789, so one could argue there is an overlap with the American War of Independence which I believe ended in 1783.

As to my point, I was merely reflecting on the comment that Britain’s “world had been turned upside down” by the defeat, makes it appear an isolated incident, whereas in fact colonialism which dates back to the 15th century, led to frictions (and wars), that manifested themselves in European efforts to support the American war effort against the British. So disappointment at defeat was inevitable, but I’m not sure Britain’s world was lost. They continued to dominate over one quarter of the world until the 20th century.

As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.

[Jazzman]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=Jazzman]To put it into historical context, American independence was viewed by colonial powers as an extension of the Napoleonic wars… [/quote]

I’m curious about the comment above. The American Revolution, which ended in 1781, pre-dated the Napoleonic Wars by nearly a generation. Which colonial powers viewed the American Revolution as connected to the Napoleonic Wars? I know of Edmund Burke’s writings on both the American and French Revolutions, but I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make here. Napoleon, as far as the ruling houses of Europe were concerned, was sui generis and viewed as a low-born thug intent on bringing all of Europe (along with some other farflung territories) to heel. I’m failing to see the connection.[/quote]

There is no real consensus on when the Napoleonic Wars started, and some historians believe they were actually a continuation of wars that preceded the French Revolution in 1789, so one could argue there is an overlap with the American War of Independence which I believe ended in 1783.

As to my point, I was merely reflecting on the comment that Britain’s “world had been turned upside down” by the defeat, makes it appear an isolated incident, whereas in fact colonialism which dates back to the 15th century, led to frictions (and wars), that manifested themselves in European efforts to support the American war effort against the British. So disappointment at defeat was inevitable, but I’m not sure Britain’s world was lost. They continued to dominate over one quarter of the world until the 20th century.

As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well.

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well.

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well.

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=Jazzman]
As to whether European powers thought Napoleon a “thug”, the term itself is derived 
from “thugee” a notorious 19th century killer, so the popularized term is unlikely to have been used then. Aside from that, he is considered to be one of the worlds greatest military commanders and is credited with the spread of civil law. His influence was so great, I hardly think other European leaders stooped to condescension other than to express sheer frustration at his brilliance.[/quote]

The use of the word “thug” was mine, and I’m familar with the Thugee of subcontinent fame.

As to the other royal houses: I’d agree with their frustration at his battlefield abilities (“brilliance” is a little strong, given his uneven record as commander of the Grand Armee), but you need to mention their frustration at his treachery, broken treaties and plundering as well.

He was considered a usurper and the royal heads of Europe were aghast when he crowned himself in front of the pope. Bad form and all that.

[Author]

Posts