I'm sorry Harry, would you please repeat your statement! [:D]
Actually Revolutionary France, though bloody in its inception, was not an empire and Napoleon stepped in on the heels of several attempts to restore the idiotic monarchy. Kings and dukes living high on the hog while people starved to death and with very little concern for the most part.
The European powers were basically enslaving their people (in armies) to do their dirty work for them. Men were conscripted into armies to fight in wars that were a constant drain on the economy and will of the people.
This was LONG before Napoleon arrived.
By the time Napoleon got into power the resentment of the French people towards the other powers made them only too glad to serve him (at first).
The War of the Third Coalition (Austerlitz) was an alliance formed before Napoleon turned on Austria. Napoleon knew that he could not invade England (the real power behind the alliances - and that to project her merchant octopus across the world, right?) so he turned on Austria (the main army power on the continent throughout the wars).
Knock out Austria and Russia always retreats. Pretty simple strategy.
Ok, so he wins at Austerlitz. Does this stop the Allies? No. Prussia rattles the saber, jumps in the saddle and gets humiliated. Russia honors their promise and after a hard fought set of campaigns loses and signs a treaty.
So who was the instigator of the wars? England! In order to protect her MASSIVE empire, which makes Napoleon's look small in comparison, she pays for some four to five major wars against Napoleon.
Even in Spain, Napoleon saw the influence of the British. I do not approve at all of what he did there. His diplomacy, as I have pointed out not long ago, was awful. Had he played off the powers as he did his Marechals things might have gone differently for Europe.
I laugh at Anton's pointing out how great the Tsar was because basically the majority of Russians at this time were serfs, sentenced to spend their lives working for someone else's profit whereas in Europe people could choose more or less what they would do as a career. Russia was still back in the old era. It would take a revolution to show the Tsars that they had gone too far.
The Tsar did nothing for Europe. He was not their saviour. Truly it was nationalism that won back Germany and defeated France. If Prussia had not been able to mobilize fully in 1813 Napoleon would have reigned supreme for probably five more years. Only his ambition and pride stopped him from ruling for another 15 years or more (health and France permitting).
I might point out also that European bungling allowed Napoleon to rule longer than he should have. Had the powers been unified in European interests rather than worrying about the spoils to be divided he may have been toppled sooner. Its the other powers that are to blame for Europe remaining under the heel of France.
I note that had the people of France not been open for the king to return then the powers would have done the same thing to them that Napoleon did to Germany and Italy. They were no different.
I only need point to the Congress of Vienna to show how the powers of Europe were bound to their national interests rather than concern over the people to back up my claim that they were just as bad as Napoleon and in some ways worse. You would think that 1813 had taught their grand children that war is too costly to fight over a matter of pride but in August of 1914 they would commit many more men that was ever imagined to war with casualties sometimes in ONE battle more than the Allies fielded in 1813.
Colonel Bill Peters, 17th Dragoons, III Corps, French Army
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Swiss-Swedish Army CinC, Musket and Cannon Game Club - Come over and see what we are all about!
NWC
Login
FAQ
</center>
</center>
Don't mean to stir things up too much. I see why Anton seems out of character when he and Bill agree.