The following is taken from an online debate Above is a link to it.
” . . . .. Not even being the ‘First Consul for Life’ satisfied him. No, he had to become ‘An enlightened despot’ *** He became Emperor of the French and his satellite nations. He aspired to style himself as the famed Roman emperor Augustus Caesar (who, I may also add, initiated many conflicts).
“Why were the conscripts actually eager to sign up? Why, in 1815, when he returned to France, not a single soldier fired on him and joined him instead? He was immensely popular with the army and continued to be until the very end.”
this, in itself, is a peculiar statement. Conscripts eager to sign up? Isn’t that oxymoronic? Conscripts are forced to sign up; there may be a few who do so willingly, but the majority of them do it so that their families do not get persecuted. Let us compare it to Hitler’s armies. He utilize conscription and thousands and millions signed up for the ‘Fuhrer’ and the ‘Reich’. Everybody was pleased to be a German soldier in 1939, 1940 and 1941, when Hitler owned Europe, the Allies torn, Russia invaded and England besieged. It is a like manner that men conditioned by propaganda would sign in Napoleon’s armies – for their nation. While the nation expands and is victorious, they can earn medals, eat well, receive payment and treat life as plentiful. When the fighting gets grim, do you really think that these conscripts and soldiers were happy, as you proclaim? Of course not! As I have also mentioned, these men were carefully conditioned by propaganda. They were soldiers of the ‘greatest’ and most victorious nation of Europe. Why not fight? To their doom.
I have never denied that he was very considerate in his political, administrative and religious achievements. This is true, but it is also irrelevant as to whether or not he was a warmonger. He precipitated and began several conflicts. He ruthlessly consolidated power and manipulated leaders until he controlled a vast portion of Europe – of which very little naturally belonged to him.
“vassal states”, as my opponent agrees, are too true. Napoleon created many of which were subjugated by him.
Here are some quotations that the reader may find interesting from the book, “The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon.”
“But it was Napoleon, however, and not the Russian ruler who actively prepared for aggression.” *
Thus, I have clearly demonstrated that Napoleon, by definition in Round 1, was a warmonger. He certainly advocated every war that he fought in. He endorsed them all and precipitated most of them (such as mobilizing and attacking before Austria even realized that war had been declared in England and France, or marching on Russia while Russia was astonished), even if he only actually declared war for a few of them. I proved that Napoleon grasped power and always attempted to consolidate more of it; such was his greed. He also was paranoid to lose it, as many other famed warmongers have been – Hitler and Stalin foremost among them.
Thanks for a wonderful Debate, Nazgul. I think I’ll take you up on that offer. this has been most interesting!
Readers, since I have clearly shown that Napoleon was, no matter how many civil achievements, a warmonger. Vote Con!”
“The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon.” * http://books.google.ca…