[Jazzman]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[Jazzman]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[Jazzman]

[quote=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.[/quote]

Whatever his military record (or otherwise) may testify to, you will likely find more references to his brilliance than thuggery. I guess it largely depended on how much you were on the receiving end, that determined how much you ascribe to one or the other view. Wellington considered his presence on the battlefield to be the equivalent
of 40,000 troops, and his military tactics are said to have modernized warfare

[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.

[Jazzman]

[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]Of course, Britain has royalty and an international upper class.[/quote]
I think that ‘getting rid of’ the landed aristocracy has actually helped France. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see all sorts of tax exemptions for the landed aristocracy in Britain. It is interesting to note of the wealthy media people in the US buying large land holdings in Britain.. though I don’t hear that much of it occurring France.[/quote]

The aristocracy is a spent force in Europe, even in the UK. Reform of the House of Lords, and high taxes over the decades have seen to that.

Language is the common denominator in relations. The US has as much in common with many European countries. There’s probably more German blood running through American veins than British. I see Germanic stoicism, French obsession with looks, British love of traditions, and Italian temperament all present in the US. Having lived in France and the UK, I would say the modern world glosses over many of the outward cultural distinctions, so preference for one over the other is more based on fickleness. Since the founding fathers were all of British descent, and France for centuries the natural enemy of the British, I would be surprised if allegiance to France was anything other than a recoil from the British. I’m not an historian, but it seems plausible.

[Jazzman]

[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]Of course, Britain has royalty and an international upper class.[/quote]
I think that ‘getting rid of’ the landed aristocracy has actually helped France. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see all sorts of tax exemptions for the landed aristocracy in Britain. It is interesting to note of the wealthy media people in the US buying large land holdings in Britain.. though I don’t hear that much of it occurring France.[/quote]

The aristocracy is a spent force in Europe, even in the UK. Reform of the House of Lords, and high taxes over the decades have seen to that.

Language is the common denominator in relations. The US has as much in common with many European countries. There’s probably more German blood running through American veins than British. I see Germanic stoicism, French obsession with looks, British love of traditions, and Italian temperament all present in the US. Having lived in France and the UK, I would say the modern world glosses over many of the outward cultural distinctions, so preference for one over the other is more based on fickleness. Since the founding fathers were all of British descent, and France for centuries the natural enemy of the British, I would be surprised if allegiance to France was anything other than a recoil from the British. I’m not an historian, but it seems plausible.

[Jazzman]

[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]Of course, Britain has royalty and an international upper class.[/quote]
I think that ‘getting rid of’ the landed aristocracy has actually helped France. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see all sorts of tax exemptions for the landed aristocracy in Britain. It is interesting to note of the wealthy media people in the US buying large land holdings in Britain.. though I don’t hear that much of it occurring France.[/quote]

The aristocracy is a spent force in Europe, even in the UK. Reform of the House of Lords, and high taxes over the decades have seen to that.

Language is the common denominator in relations. The US has as much in common with many European countries. There’s probably more German blood running through American veins than British. I see Germanic stoicism, French obsession with looks, British love of traditions, and Italian temperament all present in the US. Having lived in France and the UK, I would say the modern world glosses over many of the outward cultural distinctions, so preference for one over the other is more based on fickleness. Since the founding fathers were all of British descent, and France for centuries the natural enemy of the British, I would be surprised if allegiance to France was anything other than a recoil from the British. I’m not an historian, but it seems plausible.

[Jazzman]

[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]Of course, Britain has royalty and an international upper class.[/quote]
I think that ‘getting rid of’ the landed aristocracy has actually helped France. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see all sorts of tax exemptions for the landed aristocracy in Britain. It is interesting to note of the wealthy media people in the US buying large land holdings in Britain.. though I don’t hear that much of it occurring France.[/quote]

The aristocracy is a spent force in Europe, even in the UK. Reform of the House of Lords, and high taxes over the decades have seen to that.

Language is the common denominator in relations. The US has as much in common with many European countries. There’s probably more German blood running through American veins than British. I see Germanic stoicism, French obsession with looks, British love of traditions, and Italian temperament all present in the US. Having lived in France and the UK, I would say the modern world glosses over many of the outward cultural distinctions, so preference for one over the other is more based on fickleness. Since the founding fathers were all of British descent, and France for centuries the natural enemy of the British, I would be surprised if allegiance to France was anything other than a recoil from the British. I’m not an historian, but it seems plausible.

[Jazzman]

[quote=ucodegen][quote briansd1]Of course, Britain has royalty and an international upper class.[/quote]
I think that ‘getting rid of’ the landed aristocracy has actually helped France. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see all sorts of tax exemptions for the landed aristocracy in Britain. It is interesting to note of the wealthy media people in the US buying large land holdings in Britain.. though I don’t hear that much of it occurring France.[/quote]

The aristocracy is a spent force in Europe, even in the UK. Reform of the House of Lords, and high taxes over the decades have seen to that.

Language is the common denominator in relations. The US has as much in common with many European countries. There’s probably more German blood running through American veins than British. I see Germanic stoicism, French obsession with looks, British love of traditions, and Italian temperament all present in the US. Having lived in France and the UK, I would say the modern world glosses over many of the outward cultural distinctions, so preference for one over the other is more based on fickleness. Since the founding fathers were all of British descent, and France for centuries the natural enemy of the British, I would be surprised if allegiance to France was anything other than a recoil from the British. I’m not an historian, but it seems plausible.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts