The Napoleon Thread

[Temüjin]

thediplomat said:

First of all, Napoleon was 1 metre 57 cms. Igf you think it is pretty much average, i think you are refering to the average length of French women at that time ;D

Contrary to popular belief, Napoleon was actually slightly taller than an average Frenchman of the 19th century [11].

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Misconceptions_about_Napoleon.27s_height

this is one of the most poular and most persistent misconceptions about Napoleon.

1- French boys were trained in use of arms after Napoleon became the first consul, not in 1814 for a patriotic defence of motherland.

no they were not, were you got that information from?

2-what kind of an oath is that? how could a militray general let thousands of enemy soldiers go just based on an oath? I knew history was an invention. But i would expect more challanging comments from you.

it was really common in europe back then, remember honor meant something back then. the French army in Egypt lacked supplies and feeding so many Turkish prisoners would have seriously strained French ressources, so they were let go. i can also give you a link to a thread in German Napoleonic Forum discussing the handeling of prisoners at this time who confirm this.

3- If Napoleon did not intend the colonization of Russia, why did he invade Russia? what fo did hundreds of thousands of soldiers all over Europe die? To see Moscow? To give The Tsar Alexander a godo lesson? come onnnnn
Bro, when he came to Vilnuss, even Polish flags were raised. The reason why the Duchy of Warsaw sent thousands of soldiers for Napoelon's campaign obviously shows that Napoleon would colonize Russia somehow.

you must be joking, did Napoleon colonize italy, egypt, prussia, austria, spain? he invaded all thsoe countries and colonized zero of them...Russia also mobilized large masses of soldiers on the Polish border, so you can say it was a pre-emptive strike. in fact he improved the social situation for all countries he invaded, feudalism was removed and a civil code installed. not the monarchs though, but the common people in general benefited greatly from Napoleons invasions.

4- No, Italy was entirely a different chapter from Spain, Holland, Germany, the other places under Napoleons direct or indrect rule.
Napoleon was even jelous when a French tehcnian went to Italy, thinking that his experiences and knowledge will spread. The trade in italy was encouraged to a large extend Like Ukraine for Germany, Italy was modeled to be an economic colony of France.

i have never heard of such claims, Holland was much more wealthy at this time, it would make more sense to improve trade in a country that does already were well economcially. besides, continental european trade significantly sufered from Napoleon himself and his continental blockade. it is therefore nonsense to speak of an economic colony. and i wonder what gives you the idea that Nazi Germany ecouraged trade in Ukraine? such a statement is ludacris, to say at least.

5- Just check the number of wars during Napoelon's reign. he did fight in Waterloo, in Acree, in Moscow ...He was a lover of war. A lover of war never care about the causlties..He cares about victory only..Like Hitler.
Hitler was gentle towards Eva Braun,Marta Goebebl, Traudl Junge...etc so on..towards all women around him.

you seem to forget that Hitler invaded all those countries while in the case of Revolutionary France, all other countries invaded France, not other way round! Napoleon was just more sucessfull and brought the war back to the enemies of France, it was Europes own fault to challenge France & Napoleon.

6- History was always Hitlers favourite subject. During his days in Vienna and Munich, he spent a gread deal of time for reading only history. His interest was not only German history though. He knew a great deal about The Ancient Greece, charlemegne, 30 years war, British history and so on.

i don't really think so, in fact he might thought he knew a lot about history but in fact he didn't. just because he had a picture of Frederick the great in hsi office doesn't mean he was historically intelectual. in fact Hitler was more interested in art, or what he considdered as art. Napoleon neither was very intrigued by hsitory, he was proud of his knowledge at mathematics, but he never boasted to be a professional historian.

7- Yeah..But didnt hItler use it often like a motto? Didnt he finish a lot of his speecehs by the closing remark, Deutschland uber alles?

no, definately not.

[dardanos]

Although Ottoman Empire became very became they could stop him in Akka.

I am sure the world remembers him as ''money,money,money;)D''

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

dardanos said:

I am sure the world remembers him as ''money,money,money;)D''

I guess that is an urban legend.

[Temüjin]

i think the "sick man of europe" thing is completely nonsense, the Ottoman Empire was always able to defeat European powers until the end and their soldiers were always quite modern equipped. yes it is true that the Ottoman Empire lost more territories with time, especially to Russia but still they were much stronger than most other countries who became colonized or semi-colonies...

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

It was the Qapïqulu Ojaqlarï (Household Corps) which were weak, corrupted and "sick men". It was these who did not go to battles or fought very badly there. The provincial forces, irregulars and modern corps such as the Nizâm-ï Jedîd Ojaghï (Corps of the New Order) were of good quality and they could often inflict defeats on Austrian Habsburg, Russian and French armies. It was the British navy, garrison troops and a few hundred Nizâm-ï Cedîd Neferis (New Order Soldiers) who forced Napoleon to lift the siege of Aqqâ (Acre) and retreat back to Egypt.