Greatest Conqueror Ever

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by molly bloom


No, sorry, stop right there.


That's a gross oversimplification of continental European history, ignoring the influence of the Philosophes, the Encyclopedists, English liberalism/constituional monarchy, the American Revolution, and homegrown republican sentiments, not to mention the division between Reformation and Counter Reformation Catholic European nations and Protestant European nations.

In the struggle against the Spanish in the Eighty Years' War, for instance, it would seem only too clear that a Dutch national identity was formed, based around those of the United Provinces with a majority Protestant/Calvinist population, leading to the cultural Golden Age of the 17th and early 18th centuries.

Modern nationalism is more properly found in the Treaty of Westphalia, where the principle of cuius regio, eius religio is explicitly promoted in the political settlement.

In fact, language and literature (especially religious literature, which would have been what most people were exposed to) was already shaping peoples into nations- from sources such as William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale's translations of the Bible into English, to Luther's German New Testament.

The English Puritans, for instance, saw themselves as the inheritors of the mantle of the Chosen People because of the way they read the Bible and used it to interpret their times.

You are wholly right it was an oversimplification, done mostly for the sake of time. But I am not certain it is incorrect. What I meant when I said Napoleon was the indirect founder of German nationalism was that the Germans saw him and the French as something they could be: united and powerful. Then you get people like Hegel and Fichte who start propagating these ideas, go decades and wars later, and you have a united Germany. The Napoleonic Era was what really stimulated the Germans to throw in their lot as a unified entity....now as we know this German nationalism led to three wars which left a united Germany as the strongest nation in the world. I was mostly referring to this when I talked about those events in the 19th century. BUT, as you well know, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 can also be traced back to the Revolution and the ideas promulgated during that time. You bring up a great point about the philosophes, but keep in mind that the REVOLUTION exploded their ideas universally....so the French Revolution inherently contained their thoughts and feelings. That's why I tied the events for constitutionality and democracy to the Revolution rather than another entity. Treaty of Westphalia modern nationalism???? Umm no buddy....Napoleon is what made possible something which he didn't want to: he inflamed people's passions for their own nations.....

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ted Striker


Nope. Russia by the end of the war was an unstoppable force. The US was even more dominant and also had nukes. The combination of these two forces was the largest military (even relative) force the world had ever seen. Only the UK was marginalized at that point, but still a player.

In your words, "nope". I also forgot to mention another nation: Sweden. So that's five nations....anyway....Britain completely controlled the seas, Napoleon was massively outnumbered and he faced reprisals at the national and local levels in other countries. Furthermore, the quality of German troops was comparably better towards the latter years of WWII than the French troops in 1813-1815 (the "Marie-Louises").

[Ted Striker]

And the US completley controlled the air AND the seas.

[Ted Striker]

And the quality of German troops towards the end of WW2 was declining rapidly.

You don't remember when they started recruiting boys and old men? Not only that, the German troops, even though they fought hard til the end, lost their unstoppable confidence they had with the initial Blitzkriegs.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
And the US completley controlled the air AND the seas.

Yea but American non-land dominance was equivalent to that of Britain's after Trafalgar. I say that the Allies of 1813-1815 are stronger not because they actually are, but because Napoleon was WAY weaker. The Russian campaign in 1812 cut deeply in his ranks and he was forced to replace seasoned veterans who had mastered the then-legendary French infantry tactics with conscripts. So in relative terms, Napoleon was much weaker than Hitler by the end points and thus COMPARABLY the Allies could exert greater influence on him, this making them stronger than the Allies in World War II.....

[Ted Striker]

So you've just made the case that Napolean was in a weak state, and not worthy of mentioning among the greats.


Alexander, on the other hand, OWNED everyone he came into contact with, didn't have to regroup, AND, he personally did alot of fighting. That is like a Blitzkrieg on steroids.

The demise of Persia is exaggerated.

[Ben Kenobi]

Hitler never outright put an end to the war.

From 1934- 1938? There was no war, yet Hitler gained great gobs of territory, he managed to obtain treaties, that served his interests. So yes, he was able to war with impunity.

And even from 1939-1940, is it right to say that he really had a war on after the fall of France? Britain could not touch him, and almost signed an armistice with Hitler.

So I don't think it's really correct to say that he started a war he couldn't finish until Barbarossa, and that he really didn't deserve to fight the US, seeing that was due to the actions of his ally. Hitler can't really be blamed for drawing them into the war.

But Hitler never outright gained permanent peace. Napoleon actually did.

When did Napoleon gain actual permanent peace, rather than strategic treaties?

As far as I'm aware Napoleon concocted the plans for the campaigns completely on his own. Thus he deserves a greater share of respect.

True, but that doesn't mean that Hitler did not count as a conqueror. Look at his contemporaries. They considered him a conqueror, who was a grave menace to the peace of the world, and not his generals.

Sure his generals may have came up with the plans, but Hitler provided the drive, and the goals, to which his generals strived.

Because you're constructing it with the implication that America was always some sort of giant. We're talking 1814 here buddy

Yes, I understand that fully. And the truth is the combined might of the USSR, Britain and the United States in 1942 was far stronger than Britain and Russia in 1814.

Therefore, in order to compare Hitler with Napoleon, one has to acknowledge this fact, since this is what it took to knock him down.

Comparably, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1813-1815 were stronger than the three you mentioned.

That's a very questionable statement, given that Napoleon smashed both Austria and Prussia, whereas the coalition comprised primarily of Britian and Russia, after the defeat of Austria and Prussia.

Secondly, just compare the might of Britain and the USSR alone in 1942 compared with Britain and Russia in 1815.

Britain was stronger in 1942, with the acquisition of colonies in Africa, in Eqypt and South Africa.

Plus in 1942, you have the aid of Canada, and Australia, not available to any considerable means in 1815.

On the Russian side, the Russians had considerable development in both the Caucasus, and in Siberia and the Urals, plus a transcontinental railroad, none of which were available in 1815,

So the comparable might of the USSR and Britain alone in 1942 was greater than that of Britain and Russia in 1815, without even bringing the Americans into the picture.

If you include the Americans, who were needed to take down Hitler, then it is just no contest.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by UberCryxic

Treaty of Westphalia modern nationalism???? Umm no buddy....Napoleon is what made possible something which he didn't want to: he inflamed people's passions for their own nations.....

He didn't with the Dutch, the English, the Scots, The Irish, the Americans, the Spanish, the French, the Russians, the Poles, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns, the Greeks....


What you have done in crediting Napoleon with so much is ignore what, for want of a better phrase, would be described as 'ethnic nationalism', the idea that nationality resides in a shared language, culture or perceived ethnicity (or as per Westphalia, adherence to a particular religion).

The assertion of an avowedly English identity began not only with the foundation of an Anglican English church, but also with its exclusion from continental landholdings with the loss of Calais in the reign of Mary Tudor, and subsequently the growth of English as a language and literature accelerated by the replacement of Latin in church usage and the explosion of printed material in English in the reign of Elizabeth I.

In the works of writers in that reign you can also see some who want a more 'English' English language, with less reliance on loanwords from foreign languages, such as Greek and Latin and Italian and French- similarly the formal foundation of the Academie Francaise in the 17th Century under the aegis of Cardinal Richelieu can also be seen as major step to forming an explicit 'northern' French identity (rather than say a Provencal, Mediterranean French identity which shared culture with parts of Spain and northern Italy).

Richelieu has been described as the father of French nationalism- although a Catholic Cardinal, he saw no difficulty in opposing the Pope, or fighting Catholic countries by allying with Protestant powers, as long as it served the interest of the French state.

Similarly, in his domestic policies, he broke the power of both the French Portestant Huguenots, and the French Catholic devots nobles, who detested his alliance with Protestants- in his writings you can see the concepts of 'modern' nationalism:

"Harshness towards individuals who flout the laws and commands of the state is for the public good; no greater crime against the public interest is possible than to show leniency to those who violate it."

"I have never had any [enemies], other than those of the state."

Cardinal Richelieu

Peoples such as the Finns already had a 'national' saga- the Kalevala, and Poland although dismembered not long before Napoleon came to power, could hardly be said to have relied on him to spur it towards an idea of nationhood.

You are giving too little credit to perceptions of national/racial identity that existed before Napoleon was even thought of- the German Volk concept was expressed explicitly by Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18th Century, with an emphasis on shared culture (music, art , literature, sagas, folktales) binding a people together, but even before this, the idea of a German nation or identity was not unknown.

In any case, nationalism as a concept is expressed in several different ways- you might have a civic nationalism for instance, rather than an 'ethnic' nationalism, so that regardless of one's perceived ethnic origin, one would be an American, or a British subject (as seen when Great Britain relied on gunboat diplomacy to defend the rights of Don Pacifico
in Greece)

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/polspeech/foreign.htm

under the protection of the American or British state.

In other instances, such as Portugal wresting its freedom from Spain, or Czech/Bohemian assertion of a unique identity separate from Austro-Hungarian or German cultural domination, the course of the struggle is intimately linked with religion and culture and language, in Czechoslovakia's case from the Hussite struggles to the Slav Congress of 1848, and the aftermath of WWI and certainly predates Napoleon.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
So you've just made the case that Napolean was in a weak state, and not worthy of mentioning among the greats.


Alexander, on the other hand, OWNED everyone he came into contact with, didn't have to regroup, AND, he personally did alot of fighting. That is like a Blitzkrieg on steroids.

The demise of Persia is exaggerated.

Now when you say "weak state" are you talking about his personal health or that of his army? Haha....just sort of a rhetorical question....but his health did decline in the latter campaigns (he had to sit out the Battle of Borodino because he had bladder problems and a bad cold). Now I made the point that Napoleon was in a weak state after Russia. Well no duh......an army of 600,000 was evaporated in a few months. Only 95,000 soldiers recrossed into Poland alive. He had to raise virtually an entire separate army. This certainly doesn't preclude Napoleon from being 'among the greats'. He IS the greatest.....most historians will tell you so themselves. The debacle in Russia set the stage up for his subsequent failures (even though it is instructive to keep in mind that although Napoleon lost the remaining campaigns he never stopped winning battles....even in the Waterloo campaign the French won 3 battles and lost one, unfortunately for the them the one that mattered...but go back one year before that and you have the defensive campaign of 1814....some observers have referred to this as Napoleon's greatest campaign ever...he ultimately lost, mostly through deception and weak will, but his rapid succession of triumphs in February frightened the Allies dramatically). I want to stress on the other hand that Alexander faced a largely incompetent opponent with an empire on the verge of political collapse. I also want to stress that I am not belittling Alexander's achievements, that would be ludicrous considering the odds in numbers. But high numbers will lead to nothing if the leaders are total baffoons. In the T'umu campaign of 1449, 20,000 Mongols wiped out a Ming army of 500,000 and captured the Emperor. Surely that's greater than Alexander's achievements? Yet it does not go down in history as such because the commanders of the losing sides were highly incompetent; Darius was no warrior. Napoleon's battlefield opponents were much closer in skill to him, yet he managed to defeat them throughout his entire life. I mean THROUGHOUT....down to the very end, where he beat Blucher and inflicted 16,000 casulaties on the Prussians at Ligny (1815). In fact, Blucher has the best head-to-head rating against Napoleon, out of all generals of the time that faced the Little Corsican. His record is 2 wins, 0 draws, and 4 losses. You touting the fact that Alexander "personally did a lot of fighting" is ridiculous because commanders in ancient times (mostly before Scipio and Hannibal) were known for personally leading charges, so this is nothing special. That's what they did. And nonetheless it is a moot point since Napoleon also took many physical risks once in individual command (1796 and after). But before that, he led the charges that captured Toulon's Fort Equilette. He received a bayonet wound to the leg and his courage inspired the men. After that he continued to take physical risks, having some 10 to 18 horses shot under him during the wars he fought. Wellington said Napoleon's presence on the field was equal to "40,000 men". He encouraged troops forward and they always felt assured when he was nearby....

[Alexander's Horse]

This idea that Napoleon stimulated nationalism is greatly exagerated. He was an imperialist and a French chauvinist.

Modern nationalism in Europe is traced more to the revolutions of 1848, some 30 years after Napoleon's fall.

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


From 1934- 1938? There was no war, yet Hitler gained great gobs of territory, he managed to obtain treaties, that served his interests. So yes, he was able to war with impunity.

And even from 1939-1940, is it right to say that he really had a war on after the fall of France? Britain could not touch him, and almost signed an armistice with Hitler.

So I don't think it's really correct to say that he started a war he couldn't finish until Barbarossa, and that he really didn't deserve to fight the US, seeing that was due to the actions of his ally. Hitler can't really be blamed for drawing them into the war.



When did Napoleon gain actual permanent peace, rather than strategic treaties?



True, but that doesn't mean that Hitler did not count as a conqueror. Look at his contemporaries. They considered him a conqueror, who was a grave menace to the peace of the world, and not his generals.

Sure his generals may have came up with the plans, but Hitler provided the drive, and the goals, to which his generals strived.



Yes, I understand that fully. And the truth is the combined might of the USSR, Britain and the United States in 1942 was far stronger than Britain and Russia in 1814.

Therefore, in order to compare Hitler with Napoleon, one has to acknowledge this fact, since this is what it took to knock him down.



That's a very questionable statement, given that Napoleon smashed both Austria and Prussia, whereas the coalition comprised primarily of Britian and Russia, after the defeat of Austria and Prussia.

Secondly, just compare the might of Britain and the USSR alone in 1942 compared with Britain and Russia in 1815.

Britain was stronger in 1942, with the acquisition of colonies in Africa, in Eqypt and South Africa.

Plus in 1942, you have the aid of Canada, and Australia, not available to any considerable means in 1815.

On the Russian side, the Russians had considerable development in both the Caucasus, and in Siberia and the Urals, plus a transcontinental railroad, none of which were available in 1815,

So the comparable might of the USSR and Britain alone in 1942 was greater than that of Britain and Russia in 1815, without even bringing the Americans into the picture.

If you include the Americans, who were needed to take down Hitler, then it is just no contest.

Hitler's early attempts at gobbling up Europe were not in war-like nature. Had it been, his armies would've been absolutely destroyed. You can say he moved with political impunity, but he did not 'war' with impunity. Anyway you're detracting us from the essence of the debate, that being did Hitler actually end World War II. You seem to have a penchant for avoiding this question with repetition. Let me state again to the aid of your poorly nourished mind: he never outright ended the war. Now do you get that? Do you 'comprende'? With regards to this very specific topic, I don't want bs. I want actuality. He never ended the war like Napoleon ended conflict with the Second Coalition. I was mistaken in saying "permanent peace", that just came out wrong; it wasn't what I meant. I simply meant what I'd written before, that for a time he actually brought the conflict to an end. In March 1802 all of Europe was at peace for the first time in a decade. AND EVEN AFTER the resumption of conflict in 1805, he brought peace for a time on the continent, defeating Austrian, Russian, and Prussian armies. See? He could enjoy his accomplishments...he could look out across Europe and say "holy ****, I actually did it". Hitler worried all along.....isn't there that famous story of Molotov and Ribentropp meeting in Berlin while British bombers were flying overhead, Ribentropp saying "Britain is defeated", and Molotov coldly asking, "if that is so, whose bombs are those falling?"....hehe...

"So I don't think it's really correct to say that he started a war he couldn't finish until Barbarossa, and that he really didn't deserve to fight the US, seeing that was due to the actions of his ally. Hitler can't really be blamed for drawing them into the war." - I don't know even wtf the first part of the first sentence means. I'm not saying that....you're turning this into something necessarily over-complicated to save Hitler's laurels as a great commander (which he wasn't).....the question at hand is whether he definitively ended World War II. I don't want your god damn talking points or your wry commentary....merely an acknowledgment of a palpable fact....

"When did Napoleon gain actual permanent peace, rather than strategic treaties?" - It's called Tilsit; maybe you should read up on it....

"True, but that doesn't mean that Hitler did not count as a conqueror. Look at his contemporaries. They considered him a conqueror, who was a grave menace to the peace of the world, and not his generals.

Sure his generals may have came up with the plans, but Hitler provided the drive, and the goals, to which his generals strived." - Hitler's abilities as a military commander have seriously been called into doubt after the disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union. He blundered badly in weakening the center and shifting 4th Panzer Corps in the Caucasus Campaign. There were also plenty of other mistakes....I didn't want it to come to this....but....isn't it true that Hitler and some of his associates began to rely on the occult to actually predict their military future after they started losing??? I've seen several shows about that on the History Channel....that's a dagger right at the heart of your theory that Hitler was a great commander. I wouldn't even put him at top 40, and maybe top 50.

Britain was comparatively much weaker in the 1940's then she was in the early 19th century. Combine Nelson's genius with improving naval trends and you have the recipe for British domination of the seas. Like I said, at the time I'm analyzing, 1813-15, Napoleon was significantly weaker than Hitler's Germany in say 1944-45. Why? Because his army was COMPLETELY broken. Hitler's army suffered massive losses which had to be made up with new recruits, but never did the Germans break in the colossal scale that Napoleon's invasion of Russia did. Nappy was virtually armyless after Russia. We all know about the diabolical efficiency of the German army RIGHT UP till the end. It was never as badly pummeled as the French in 1812. Furthermore, the disturbing pattern was one of decreased Napoleonic fortunes and upbeat Allied assessments as forces started pouring in for the German campaign of 1813. Napoleon came out and Bautzen and Lutzen, but the victories were insignificant. Yet the Allies signed a 10-week armistice anyway (which they prolonged later). The campaign opened up with a classic Napoleonic victory at Dresden (40,000 Allied casualties versus 10,000 French....but it didn't matter because Allied numbers were so high they could afford heavy losses) but after losing to him for over a decade they finally realized how to play the game....they had a good strategy, better numbers....all in all it equals Leipizig. Relatively (when Napoleon's and Hitler's strengths are considered) they were stronger than the Allies of World War II...

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This idea that Napoleon stimulated nationalism is greatly exagerated. He was an imperialist and a French chauvinist.

Modern nationalism in Europe is traced more to the revolutions of 1848, some 30 years after Napoleon's fall.

Umm I would love it if you get me reputable sources for that one. Modern nationalism started in the French Revolution, firstly with France, then it spread to other countries. It's one of the most obvious things ever. It affected everything after....the Spanish revolt of 1823 (which, very ironically, the French put down themselves), the 1830 and the 1848 revolutions etc....in fact, MODERN HISTORY started with the French Revolution, and with Napoleon the first signs of the modern state.

[Alexander's Horse]

obvious things are your forte

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
obvious things are your forte

Oh are we adopting a defeatist attitude now and retreating with half-assed comments???

[UberCryxic]

Originally posted by molly bloom


He didn't with the Dutch, the English, the Scots, The Irish, the Americans, the Spanish, the French, the Russians, the Poles, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns, the Greeks....


What you have done in crediting Napoleon with so much is ignore what, for want of a better phrase, would be described as 'ethnic nationalism', the idea that nationality resides in a shared language, culture or perceived ethnicity (or as per Westphalia, adherence to a particular religion).

The assertion of an avowedly English identity began not only with the foundation of an Anglican English church, but also with its exclusion from continental landholdings with the loss of Calais in the reign of Mary Tudor, and subsequently the growth of English as a language and literature accelerated by the replacement of Latin in church usage and the explosion of printed material in English in the reign of Elizabeth I.

In the works of writers in that reign you can also see some who want a more 'English' English language, with less reliance on loanwords from foreign languages, such as Greek and Latin and Italian and French- similarly the formal foundation of the Academie Francaise in the 17th Century under the aegis of Cardinal Richelieu can also be seen as major step to forming an explicit 'northern' French identity (rather than say a Provencal, Mediterranean French identity which shared culture with parts of Spain and northern Italy).

Richelieu has been described as the father of French nationalism- although a Catholic Cardinal, he saw no difficulty in opposing the Pope, or fighting Catholic countries by allying with Protestant powers, as long as it served the interest of the French state.

Similarly, in his domestic policies, he broke the power of both the French Portestant Huguenots, and the French Catholic devots nobles, who detested his alliance with Protestants- in his writings you can see the concepts of 'modern' nationalism:

"Harshness towards individuals who flout the laws and commands of the state is for the public good; no greater crime against the public interest is possible than to show leniency to those who violate it."

"I have never had any [enemies], other than those of the state."

Cardinal Richelieu

Peoples such as the Finns already had a 'national' saga- the Kalevala, and Poland although dismembered not long before Napoleon came to power, could hardly be said to have relied on him to spur it towards an idea of nationhood.

You are giving too little credit to perceptions of national/racial identity that existed before Napoleon was even thought of- the German Volk concept was expressed explicitly by Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18th Century, with an emphasis on shared culture (music, art , literature, sagas, folktales) binding a people together, but even before this, the idea of a German nation or identity was not unknown.

In any case, nationalism as a concept is expressed in several different ways- you might have a civic nationalism for instance, rather than an 'ethnic' nationalism, so that regardless of one's perceived ethnic origin, one would be an American, or a British subject (as seen when Great Britain relied on gunboat diplomacy to defend the rights of Don Pacifico
in Greece)

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/polspeech/foreign.htm

under the protection of the American or British state.

In other instances, such as Portugal wresting its freedom from Spain, or Czech/Bohemian assertion of a unique identity separate from Austro-Hungarian or German cultural domination, the course of the struggle is intimately linked with religion and culture and language, in Czechoslovakia's case from the Hussite struggles to the Slav Congress of 1848, and the aftermath of WWI and certainly predates Napoleon.

Molly are you aware that Napoleon formed an Irish Foreign Legion for his army??? Yep....and believe it or not, almost ALL of those groups were afflicted by the French Revolution in some way that caused them to rise up in arms. Remember the Belgian revolt of 1830 that led to independence from Holland? Because of the French Revolution....yep....like I said most of the things in the 19th century can be traced back to the French Revolution. Regardless I will keep my reply short because I've understood the meat of your topic. You are saying I am not paying much attention to the identity these groups that later rose up fostered in years before Napoleon. And that is a very legitimate and correct accusation. I didn't pay attention to it much. But only because that was not my intention. When I say, "the French Revolution saw the founding of MODERN nationalism" (keep the word 'modern' in mind) I mean that it exploded all those sentiments that had been building up in the previous century/centuries. These common identities were finally let out of a cannonball by the French Revolution; Napoleon was the spark. He was the catharcist. No the identifications of these groups did not become formed under Napoleon, in that characterization you are absolutely correct and there is no reason for me to argue against it, but their common anger, frustration, and desires were set to action by what Napoleon did.....that is what I was saying. I hope this time I was a bit more clearer.