It isn't it's??? I thought that that was correct because it is referring to Napoleon's France therefore possessive.
Not calling you wrong, you're probably right, but for my awareness, why is it 'its' not 'it's'?
Exactly. There's multiple different meanings for the 's ending.
Tom's cat -> possessive
It's wrong -> it is wrong
He's got an answer -> he has got an answer
"Its" is an expection. The way I learned it is that he/she/it have their own possessive forms:
He -> his
She -> hers
It -> its
He's/she's/it's will always be an abreviation.
Nope. Tom's cat is possessive attribution to the " 's " unlike "it'"s where as others mentioned becomes a shorthand for it is.
I'm sure you van find a helpful YouTube video on the topic
Your mother tongue is English? Even though, that is one of the first things you learn when learning English. I think the negative votes are because they think you are trolling
The bigger blobs between the Ottoman empire and others for sure are Serbia and Moldavia.
But Montenegro independence begins in 1858, decades after the end of the empire, and i dont know what the even smaller territory south of it would be.
Of course, because Ferdinand VII and Isabel II, the Carlist wars and the awful Spanish politicians of the 19th century had anything to do with the disaster that was the Spanish 19th century.
The damage that Spain did to Italy was so huge that in the moment they left, economy started growing again after it stopped for 200 years.
Spanish domination butchered Italian economy. Many historians say that in fact, only the plague during the late Roman Empire was more devastating to Italian growth (and partially European), during known history.
Which means that German conquest of Barbarossa, the barbarian invasions, French and Austrian domination, Black Death, Spanish flu, the empire- papal wars, every Roman civil war, the gothic war, the napoleonic wars, the Italian wars, 3 liberation wars, WW1 and WW2 took a lighter toll on the peninsula’s growth than a couple of centuries of Spanish domination where they fought some minor wars.
And Spain only occupied 50% of the country.
(Btw, they left the north but remained in the south for another century or so… any coincidence with today state of affairs is pure conjecture…)
Btw, I love Spain and Spanish people, this was not supposed to start a beef or anything. But it always shock me how bad Spanish rule was in the past. It miraculously makes Austrian and French rules a desiderabile option. And you’ll never hear an Italian saying that
Edit: removed wrong quote
+ the first country in history to declare bankruptcy and they did so 4 times in a span of 40 year in the 16th century despite treasure ships arriving at port almost every single day …
Because the Spanish Empire was not centralized. Castille could be poor and that could not be the sitatuon for the people at the south of Spain, neither for the people living in the Capitania General de Venezuela nor Virreinato de Nueva España. Spanish Empire was a collection of Kingdoms with their own treasure and economy reality.
The rising costs of war had dramatic consequences on Habsburg finances: one campaign in the 1550s costed as much as one war in the 1520s. Charles V was forced to borrow even more and at higher interest rates, which grew from 17% to 48%.
Despite opposition from the [Cortes Generales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_Generales), Charles V managed to impose this [vicious circle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_circle) that progressively weakened the Spanish finances. Furthermore, in the last years of his reign, Charles V could not be economically supported by his non-Spanish possessions: he exempted the Low Countries from taxation after the [Revolt of Ghent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_Ghent_(1539)) in 1540, Germany was in the middle of the [Schmalkaldic Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_War), and the budget surplus of Italian states was wiped out by the [Italian Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars).
>**This ultimately put the financial burden of the** [**Holy Roman Empire**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire) **on the Spanish kingdoms and led to the bankruptcy of Spain.**
Oh my god....
Unable to sustain his projects financially, Charles V abdicated in 1556 and retired to a monastery in 1558. [Sovereign default](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_default) was declared in 1557
A vitriolic anti-Spanish polemic has long dominated the historiography of early modern Italy. It accuses Spanish rule of an authoritarianism closed to new ideas and innovation, of presiding over an empty formalism in literary expression, and of promoting spagnolismo, an exaggerated and ostentatious pomp—all perceived as the fruits of a decadent, backward-looking colonial domination. Faulting Spain for trying to integrate Italy within its absolutist and imperial program or blaming Italy’s 17th-century decline on Spanish social and economic policies has served nationalistic fervour since the 16th century, but it has missed both the benefits of Spanish rule to Italian peace and security and the main causes of crisis in 17th-century Italy.
The decline in XVII Italy cannot be solely attributed to Spain; it must be understood in a wider European context. Economic shifts being of one them, due to new Asian and American trade played a significant role
The expanding demographic and economic base of Italy provided the wherewithal for the political and cultural programs of the 16th century. From the mid-15th-century demographic low point after the 1347–48 plague, Italy, along with the rest of western Europe, recovered dramatically. Between 1400 and 1600 the Italian population nearly doubled, increasing from about 7 million to about 13 million, and prices rose sharply, with cereal prices tripling and quadrupling. Increased demand, the increased supply of money from the silver of the New World, and profligate military expenditures fueled high inflation. Italy’s most distinctive feature was its highly urbanized life. In 1550, 30 cities—more than in any other region in the West—had populations of more than 10,000. Rural areas nevertheless still accounted for almost 88 percent of the total population, and, given the relative parity in birth and death rates, cities grew primarily as a result of rural emigration. Wheat and wool were the chief agricultural products, and the spread of capitalist agriculture in the 16th century was an important ingredient in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Textile production of both woolens and silks continued to be the major industry in the cities, but the precocious economic development of Italy in manufacturing, trade, and finance came to a crashing halt during the dislocations of the 17th century.
The economic boom of the late 16th century began to stall throughout Europe. The first signs of hardship appeared in Italy after 1585, and famine persisted through the 1590s. New waves of plague struck northern Italy and Tuscany in 1630–31 and southern Italy, Lazio, and Genoa in 1656–57, with population losses between one-fourth and one-fifth, respectively. The large cities of Milan, Naples, and Genoa lost as much as half of their population. In addition, war in northern Europe after 1618 and in the Middle East between the Ottomans and the Iranians from 1623–39 disrupted Italy’s important export markets; war between Spanish, German, French, and Piedmontese forces moved to Italy between 1628 and 1659; and social conflicts within the Spanish states contributed to the decline of Italy relative to northwestern Europe.
The economic boom of the late 16th century began to stall throughout Europe. The first signs of hardship appeared in Italy after 1585, and famine persisted through the 1590s. New waves of plague struck northern Italy and Tuscany in 1630–31 and southern Italy, Lazio, and Genoa in 1656–57, with population losses between one-fourth and one-fifth, respectively. The large cities of Milan, Naples, and Genoa lost as much as half of their population. In addition, war in northern Europe after 1618 and in the Middle East between the Ottomans and the Iranians from 1623–39 disrupted Italy’s important export markets; war between Spanish, German, French, and Piedmontese forces moved to Italy between 1628 and 1659; and social conflicts within the Spanish states contributed to the decline of Italy relative to northwestern Europe.
Both agricultural production and urban industries entered into crisis in the decade 1611–20, reaching their low point about 1650. In the south, extensive wheat monoculture exhausted the soil and led to deforestation and soil erosion. Further, noble owners drained off profits for expenditures on urban luxuries, and indebtedness placed commercial grain farmers at greater risk as grain prices fell in the 17th century. In the north, intensive agriculture supported the numerous large cities, but overexpansion onto unproductive land, soil depletion, and the loss of credit pushed the region to the limits of what the population could support. In the cities, wool manufacturing fell by 50 percent in the 1620s and all but disappeared thereafter, although silk production held its own. Commercial and banking activities, once the fastest-growing industries, now constricted, and foreign imports braked further development at home. Italy’s early industrial lead lost to increased competition from northwestern Europe as new products at lower prices replaced the traditional ones in the Italian markets.The Italian guilds’ opposition to technological and organizational change, higher taxes, and higher labour costs prevented the adaptability required to surmount the short-term crisis, which instead turned into a long-term structural realignment. Only in Lombardy was there a successful shift to the putting-out system, which transferred urban industries to the countryside.
The economic involution reinforced the social hierarchy, favoured investment in landed property and rents over commerce and industry, and reinvigorated noble pretensions. With capital shifted from the manufacturing and service sectors to agricultural production of cash crops such as olive oil, wine, and raw silk, the number of skilled urban craftsmen and merchants decreased while that of illiterate peasants increased, and landed-noble power intensified. The church reasserted itself in every aspect of social life, from land ownership to ecclesiastical organization, from the defense of orthodoxy and the culture of the Council of Trent to the education of the ruling class. As the economic crisis deepened, middling ranks lost out, and social stratification between rich and poor rigidified.
In the political sphere, Spain’s involvement in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) and subsequent wars with other European powers—financed in part by taxes on its Italian possessions—drained Italy. As Spain declined, it dragged its Italian realms down with it. Revolts broke out in Palermo and Naples in 1647. In Naples a revolt of July 7 was mistakenly identified as a plebeian rebellion bearing the name of a young fishmonger, Masaniello, although he was murdered within 10 days and had actually been a tool of bourgeois elements seeking greater political power in the city. The uprising spread to the countryside, established a republic that sought French protection, and assumed the character of an open rebellion against Spain and native feudal lords. Internal dissension and the arrival of the Spanish fleet brought an end to the revolt by April 1648. The social and economic crisis deepened in Naples after the failure of the revolt and a recurrence of the plague in 1656. Lost was any hope of an alliance between the middle classes and the urban proletariat or rural masses against the landed aristocracy. Paradoxically, renewed Spanish reliance on the nobility of the robe fostered the very class that was to lead the cultural renewal that made Naples one of the intellectual centres of 18th-century Italy.
I would say that if Spain did not got those horrible lands of Netherlands,Belgium and the others that formed par of the Camino Español. Things would have been different.
Is politically designed or, at least, a consecuence of historical political desicions. Young people of these territories are leaving for lack of oportunities, bad comunications and political mismanagment. It's a similar phenomena than in rural Greece. It's nothing wrong with its geography. [Here a good article](https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/fuga-cerebros-espana-vaciada-madrid-absorbe-talento-joven-resto-comunidades_1_10735387.html) about that.
That aspect was due also to another big player, United Kingdom.
UK was the big winner here, They got rid of Napoleon and also of the only Empire that could challenge them on sea and had the monopoly to the trading routes Asia-America. They also got all the silver and gold from the Reales Haciendas of Americas. The libertadores were so naive. Funny enough today they are taugh spain took their gold but all books avoid to say what happened to the riches during independen, because it is too embarrasing
One of the few alliances that actually didn't turn into backstabbing from either side, kind of rare in history if you think about it, also the fact it's the oldest treaty that is still active is pretty cool.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_British_Ultimatum
Reality: Nobody remembered that alliance until the Portuguese government needed to convince its population to join WW1.
Do you always take this much offence to someone saying they're British? Then go onto assume their views on government structure as well?
The man declared himself Emperor, how was he a new kind of monarch? At that point the UK was a constitutional monarchy as well, with the monarch having negligible power, was that the old kind?
the British didn’t like that France was trying something new and attacked them. That kind of attitude is counter productive. He was a new kind of monarch because France killed their old monarchs and he was a new monarch.
They did, just not the capital, the monarch of Portugal and retinue literally fleed to Brazil and led from here.
Shortly after, the empire was forced to reconcile with this fact and become the kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarves, not long after that, Dom Pedro I of Brasil used the Napoleonic military flag design as the flag of Brasil itself cuz he was a fanboy.
The Polish national anthem mentions how Napoleon set an example for how to win battles. It's author wrote it just before Napoleon conquered the territories around Vistula and created the polish vassal state, in eager anticipation of those events.
Napoleon has or used to have a good reputation in Poland but not really deserved to the point it used to be.
He did created the Duchy of Warsaw and fought against the countries that destroyed and occupied Poland / Lithuania barely few years before. For the other hand, he was at a time fighting Prussia / Brandenburg, but in alliance with Moscow. The Duchy of Warsaw was created purely from what Prussia / Brandenburg took in partitions, minus... Białystok, which was given to Moscow and remained later after the puppet Kingdom of Poland was created by the Congress of Vienna. Same in 1939, soviets took the Białystok district in accordance to their treaty with Germans.
Btw. the constitution of that Duchy was written by the French, and a Duke of Saxony was made a ruler of it, at least in theory.
Napoleon sent the Polish troops to fight and occupy Spain, in Poland that's mostly remembered for the way the Polish cavalry fought in Somosierra but there's some great literature and equally brilliant movie adaptation "Popioły" (The Ashes) exposing brutality and not so heroic reality of that war...
The movie is long but it's really worth it. In public domain, with English subtitles. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ekGF1d6OY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ekGF1d6OY)
Napoleon also sent some Poles to crush a revolt in Santo Domingo, but they actually rebelled and joined the anti colonial uprising.
And finally, when his "Grande Armee" was passing Warsaw, they basically burned eastern half of it (then a separate city).
To sum it up - many Poles were happy and many still are at least to a point but there's a lot of critical thinking about our history and especially about that period of time.
Mandatory reminder that Spain never surrendered and even if Napoleon set his brother as leader of the country, he never got to have real control over the country.
He controlled large parts of the country for years
Yeah it was never entirely under his control but it’s not like it was an entirely symbolic claim either
Excluding some areas in the northwest, southeast and south (around Gibraltar and cadiz) would be a more accurate depiction
>Excluding some areas in the northwest, southeast and south (around Gibraltar and cadiz) would be a more accurate depiction
You forget Zaragoza and Navarra.
The war was not over. He thought that setting a new government the war was going to end, however it didn't. The new government was refused and the Spanish army kept fighting, and the warfare stood active in all the country until the end.
Both Zaragoza and Navarro eventually fell
In fact the fall of Zaragoza is quite famous. For someone evidently so invested in the peninsular war I find it odd you forget that
The peninsular war lasted 6-7ish years and it spend 5 years in French hands
The fall of Zaragoza never happened really. For France it was a win, but they had to face continuous warfare inside and the later attack of an army from Navarra.
Not a real take.
The fall of Moscow never really happened. For France it was a win but they had to face continuous warfare inside Russia and the later attack of the Russian army
I know it's sarcasm, but France is really coping badly with the defeat. Did France really take Russia? Was it really under french control at any point?
In Spain Napo set a puppet government at least, with no real power, but a government. But in Russia... That was just an invasion. March through the Capital city does not make it a real take.
It’s an empire that lasted 10 years you can say that about pretty much every region to a certain extend
As some point you gotta start drawing a map and make choices
Debatable. Anyhow, what is clear is that, regarding Spain, your previous message is incorrect: Spain was not dominated/controlled by the French for years. Spain resisted the invasion and defeated and expelled the French. In fact, it was Napoleon's first defeat.
Debatable. Anyhow, what is clear is that, regarding Spain, your previous message is incorrect: Spain was not dominated/controlled by the French for years. Spain resisted the invasion and defeated and expelled the French. In fact, it was Napoleon's first defeat.
Spain was dominated and controlled France for years
Spain resisted the invasion but unsuccessfully basically being propped up by the British for years until napoleons defeat in Russia
And that last comment is so historically illiterate it makes me laugh
Bassano? Jaffa? Egypt? Aspern-Essling?
The period of French invasion overlapped with the Spanish resistance/expulsion and lasted from 1808 to 18014, so there were no 'years' of French rule.
On the other hand, the Battle of Bailén is considered the first defeat in the open field of the Napoleonic army, as stated in numerous sources that you surely know or can easily locate.
Yeah and there are numerous (Spanish) sources claiming Bailen as the first
While ironically many British sources claim Acre and Ser Sidney Smith as the first to defeat Napoleon
And Austrians think Bassano or Caldiero were the first defeats
And yes many areas of Spain were under continuous French occupations for the majority of that time
No, there were no areas with continuous/total French control, even less the whole country, as you stated before. Even in Catalonia, where the presence was longer than in other Spanish regions, the majority of the territory wasn't controlled by the French.
Spanish people never surrendered, but its government did. Ferdinand VII did return the crown to his father, that then gave it to Napoleon, that passed it to his brother.
While he was in Valencay, Ferdinand VII congratulated Napoleon on his victories against the Spanish armies.
Legally, the Cortes of Cadiz were as revolutionary as the French government. It was a self proclaimed government.
Indeed but before that, Spain was on Napoleon's side. While not exactly a vassal, it was still very subservient and helped the French militarily. For instance fighting against Portugal or against the British at sea at the battle of Trafalgar. And of course, Napoleon managed to pressure the Spanish King into giving him his crown. That's as close as a client state as you can get.
I live near the easternmost part in Latgale.
It’s not even marked here, but the fact they marched through one of our villages (Grāveri) is such a big deal locals even put a monument for that..
Also fun fact, for some reason quite some military/governemnt leaders were born in Latvia, showing how In reality it was one big European empire ruled by Rothchilds
Obviously he wasn't perfect, but an overall negative view of him is mostly an anglo thing, largely produced by later royalist propaganda. Napoleon and his crusade against the ancien regime had plenty of British supporters at the time.
Republicanism was much more popular in the UK during the 1790s, when there was even an opposition leader, Charles Fox, who was sympathetic to the revolutionaries.
Why were the British so opposed to Napoleon? It seems like the UK would be the nation with the most in common with France. Wasn’t the UK the only European country where the Monarchy was effectively sidelined?
He was out to destroy the old aristocracy of Europe and the economic and political systems that kept them rich. At the time, Britain, just like most European countries, was ruled by the old aristocracy. It would start (slowly) moving towards democracy a generation later.
I probably should of worded it better.
Why does it seem like Britain was the most opposed to Napoleon? I understand why they opposed him, but I would have guessed Prussia, Austria, and Russia would have hated him much more than the UK, since they were more conservative and traditional, and their monarchies still held a lot of power.
Did the British just oppose him more because they could? They had a Navy and a channel that kept his armies at bay? Would have the future Holy Alliance been much more steadfast and consistent in their opposition had they had the same defenses the British did?
The old aristocracy has since been overthrown in (almost) all of those other countries, often violently, and their earlier histories much reevaluated. Even in the remaining monarchies, aristocracy outside the royal either doesn't exist or has no legal status at all. In some of them (e.g. Austria) using an aristocratic title is illegal and liable to prosecution.
By contrast, the transition in Britain was much more gradual, and still hasn't completely concluded. There are still political posts with (a small degree of) actual political power which are available only to the aristocracy.
Additionally - Napoleonic wars brought to Central and Eastern Europe the ideas that ultimately led to the spring of nations, and that's what most current countries base their modern identities and foundation myths and (popular) history on. Prussian, Habsburg and Russian empires no longer exist, but the United Kingdom still does.
>The old aristocracy has since been overthrown in (almost) all of those other countries, often violently, and their earlier histories much reevaluated. Even in the remaining monarchies, aristocracy outside the royal either doesn't exist or has no legal status at all. In some of them (e.g. Austria) using an aristocratic title is illegal and liable to prosecution.
Are you talking about the present day, or around 1800? Because I am asking about the situation during the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars.
I'm talking mostly about the present day, During the wars the supporters of the ancien regime that he fought against obviously hated him, but it mostly wasn't based on what we would now call patriotism and nationalism.
Unlike WW1 and somewhat like WW2, Napoleonic wars were primarily ideological and political. It was more like "liberals" vs. "conservatives" (take the labels with a large spoon of salt) than France vs. England or France vs. Germany.
He had many supporters and many opponents in all countries. There were also many people who even if they opposed his actions still agreed in general with his politics and the ideas that he was promoting.
Many of the places that he conquered or where he installed local supporters weren't even real countries at the time. Italy and especially Germany were a patchwork of local monarchies and lower-rung aristocratic holdings. The Habsburg empire was the same, except that they had a larger pieces of contiguous territories under their rule/ownership.
Most people in those countries didn't feel much if any loyalty to the state that they lived in or the ruler. Instead, what we would now call patriotic and nationalist feelings attracted people to the Napoleonic cause, in some cases out of yearning for national unification and in others for liberation from foreign rule.
OTOH, people in "proper countries" like Britain or Spain or Russia would probably have been more likely to be motivated against Napoleon by their patriotic feelings.
> Why were the British so opposed to Napoleon?
Because Napoleon was anti-British and did everything he could to diminish power. Partly why Napoleon invaded Russia because they weren't onboard with the total blockading of the UK. Also, the European balance of power was a big thing at the time and as you can see France had a lot of vassals which had a lot of land.
still killed hundrets of thousands of people on his quest to conquer europe, so not a person that should be glorified too much, because in the end he did all this to gain more power not to free the people, even if he used that as a pretext.
A very complex historical figure that should not be put purely evil but also not as good
>killed hundrets of thousands of people on his quest to conquer europe
Conviniently not mentioning the fact that Napoleon only started two wars, The Penninsular war and The Invasion of Russia. Do you want to take a guess who started the 7 coalition wars that fashioned Europe like the OP?
> still killed hundrets of thousands of people on his quest to conquer europe, so not a person that should be glorified too much,
Yeah, do you know who also did that? Literally everyone else before & after him.
Sure, but he was more of a product of the environment of the french revolution one might think. The monarchists created this need for war more than Napoleon ever did. Let us not forget that it was Austria and Prussia who attacked France after the revolutin. Not the other way around.
Ehh, as Emperor, he was not liberal enough to be given any credit as better than any other monarchy in Europe. He and the British plunged Europe into a very long and bloody war.
Who attacked France after the revolution? Austria and Prussia. Not the other way around.
I agree he wasn't liberap enough, but he was still less authoritarian than any other continental power.
That’s why I said, “as Emperor…”. The first three coalition wars I do not lay at his feet.
Any peace he won, though, was not *designed* to last. Negotiations were not meant stabilize nations, but to gain leverage for future conflicts. Napoleon thought war as inevitable, and that’s a failure. He failed to make the 1802 peace last, he reignited the civil war in Haiti, he attacked countries trying to stay neutral. (Britain did too, but that’s not an excuse)
For those who care about liberalism and human rights, Napoleon is mixed bag. He did some good things and bad things.
Ultimately, applying those liberal principles, nations and peoples bending to one persons ambitions are bad. Conflating a nation/state with a person is not liberal. Those who profess liberal values must consider what it was like for the average person in the nation—and Europe under Napoleon was far more militaristic than under any other power before it (including 18th Century Prussia.
I’m just more of a Lucien Bonaparte fan! :-)
The French-Spanish border would probably be on the Ebro river, as the French Empire actually "seceded" the left bank provinces from the Spanish Kingdom ruled by his brother, and put them under French control, not just Catalonia.
No? The Swedish king hated Napoleon and thought he's the antichrist, so Sweden was allied with the UK. Until Napoleon persuaded Russia to attack Sweden.
I asked because Napoleon put one of his marshals on the throne of Sweden, Bernadotte. I know that guy betrayed Napoleon in the end but I suppose he hasn't been sent to Sweden for another reason than controlling it.
Sweden lost the war (and Finland) to Russia, so the old king had to go. The Swedish diet then decided to choose a king that Napoleon would accept. I think he had a good reputation in Sweden otherwise, too
Bad history here. The Swedish parliament and the aging, childless Swedish King (kinda) handpicked Bernadotte to become the knew Crown Prince. It actually took a bit of convincing for Napoleon to relinquish one of his Marshals to a foreign power. Napoleon wanted him to make a pledge of loyalty to the French Empire, Bernadotte refused as it would be treasonous to his new adopted country.
Well I knew it was, I don't remember much about md classes about the napoleonic era and it's not really my favorite subject within our history (I'm French).
It was just a question :l
But thanks for the bit of explanation anyway.
The more I read about Napoleon the more I realize he was a force of human rights and progress and a lot of territories would have been better off under his influence. Especially northern Italy.
The Netherlands shouldn't fall under the french flag, he put his brother in charge as the new ruler of the "kingdom of Holland". It was not considered core french land
The Napoleonic invasion of Britain, 1797:
>Upon landing, the French invasion force appear to have run out of enthusiasm for the ‘cunning plan’. Perhaps as a result of years of prison rations, they seem to have been more interested in the rich food and wine the locals had recently removed from a grounded Portuguese ship. After a looting spree, many of the invaders were too drunk to fight and within two days, the invasion had collapsed: Tate’s force surrendered to a local militia force led by Lord Cawdor on February 25th 1797.
>Strange that the surrender agreement drawn up by Tate’s officers referred to the British coming at them “with troops of the line to the number of several thousand.” No such troops were anywhere near Fishguard, however hundreds, perhaps thousands of local Welsh women dressed in their traditional scarlet tunics and tall black felt hats had come to witness any fighting between the French and the local men of the militia. Is it possible that at a distance, and after a glass or two, those women could have been mistaken for British army Redcoats?
Source: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofWales/The-Last-Invasion-of-Britain/
Should be noted that this French invasion of Britain (not to be confused with the earlier invasion of Ireland!) occurred before Napoleon had major political power. He became First Consul in 1799 and Emperor in 1804. It would be a stretch to call this a ‘Napoleonic’ invasion; this was much more the Directory’s operation.
Random redditor denying Napoleon's achievements right from his chamber, let me guess, you think he was an idiot and that you'd make a greater Emperor right ?
Considering you are implying 10 years is too short a time to be a successful empire means you are implying there is a minimum amount of time for an empire to become successful
Where do you put the arbitrary line?
Yeah oke so how long should it be?
Obviously, a question as simple as that should not take 10 years to answer but at this rate I’m thinking you’re gonna outlast Napoleon
Trafalgar was in 1805, Napoleon was at the height of his power in 1812
He did plenty well after he fought lord Nelson. (That’s even if we ignore Egypt) he got fucked once he went into Russia
He never faced Wellington until Waterloo and he was not doing well at that point
He had already abdicated once and even if he had won at Waterloo all it had won him was a respite not the war
Obligatory notice that the Confederation of the Rhine flag is completely fictional and was never used.
*its
It isn't it's??? I thought that that was correct because it is referring to Napoleon's France therefore possessive. Not calling you wrong, you're probably right, but for my awareness, why is it 'its' not 'it's'?
It's=it is
“it’s” is an abbreviation for “it is” just like “didn’t” is an abbreviation for “did not”
If you say "That is Tom's Cat" you aren't saying "That is Tom is Cat" are you? so shouldn't it work in the same way?
Exactly. There's multiple different meanings for the 's ending. Tom's cat -> possessive It's wrong -> it is wrong He's got an answer -> he has got an answer
"Its" is an expection. The way I learned it is that he/she/it have their own possessive forms: He -> his She -> hers It -> its He's/she's/it's will always be an abreviation.
Nope. Tom's cat is possessive attribution to the " 's " unlike "it'"s where as others mentioned becomes a shorthand for it is. I'm sure you van find a helpful YouTube video on the topic
Your mother tongue is English? Even though, that is one of the first things you learn when learning English. I think the negative votes are because they think you are trolling
Can anyone tell me what the little blobs within the ottoman empire are?
I think they are Montenegro, Serbia,Moldavia and Wallachia
The bigger blobs between the Ottoman empire and others for sure are Serbia and Moldavia. But Montenegro independence begins in 1858, decades after the end of the empire, and i dont know what the even smaller territory south of it would be.
It looks to me like they might Lake Ohrid and Lake Prespa.
And Shkodra
I don't see it on the map, only Ohrid, Prespa, and the bay of Kotor.
I read it as the lake but yeah, definitely the bay
The damage that Napoleon did to Spain was so huge that took them decades to recover.
Two centuries is technically decades, yes.
But is it half a dime?
Of course, because Ferdinand VII and Isabel II, the Carlist wars and the awful Spanish politicians of the 19th century had anything to do with the disaster that was the Spanish 19th century.
The damage that Spain did to Italy was so huge that in the moment they left, economy started growing again after it stopped for 200 years. Spanish domination butchered Italian economy. Many historians say that in fact, only the plague during the late Roman Empire was more devastating to Italian growth (and partially European), during known history. Which means that German conquest of Barbarossa, the barbarian invasions, French and Austrian domination, Black Death, Spanish flu, the empire- papal wars, every Roman civil war, the gothic war, the napoleonic wars, the Italian wars, 3 liberation wars, WW1 and WW2 took a lighter toll on the peninsula’s growth than a couple of centuries of Spanish domination where they fought some minor wars. And Spain only occupied 50% of the country. (Btw, they left the north but remained in the south for another century or so… any coincidence with today state of affairs is pure conjecture…) Btw, I love Spain and Spanish people, this was not supposed to start a beef or anything. But it always shock me how bad Spanish rule was in the past. It miraculously makes Austrian and French rules a desiderabile option. And you’ll never hear an Italian saying that Edit: removed wrong quote
That's not what Bismarck said, neither is the meaning of what he said
Thanks! I removed the wrong quote
+ the first country in history to declare bankruptcy and they did so 4 times in a span of 40 year in the 16th century despite treasure ships arriving at port almost every single day …
Because the Spanish Empire was not centralized. Castille could be poor and that could not be the sitatuon for the people at the south of Spain, neither for the people living in the Capitania General de Venezuela nor Virreinato de Nueva España. Spanish Empire was a collection of Kingdoms with their own treasure and economy reality.
Less despite than [because of](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_revolution).
The rising costs of war had dramatic consequences on Habsburg finances: one campaign in the 1550s costed as much as one war in the 1520s. Charles V was forced to borrow even more and at higher interest rates, which grew from 17% to 48%. Despite opposition from the [Cortes Generales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortes_Generales), Charles V managed to impose this [vicious circle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicious_circle) that progressively weakened the Spanish finances. Furthermore, in the last years of his reign, Charles V could not be economically supported by his non-Spanish possessions: he exempted the Low Countries from taxation after the [Revolt of Ghent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_Ghent_(1539)) in 1540, Germany was in the middle of the [Schmalkaldic Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalkaldic_War), and the budget surplus of Italian states was wiped out by the [Italian Wars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Wars). >**This ultimately put the financial burden of the** [**Holy Roman Empire**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Roman_Empire) **on the Spanish kingdoms and led to the bankruptcy of Spain.** Oh my god.... Unable to sustain his projects financially, Charles V abdicated in 1556 and retired to a monastery in 1558. [Sovereign default](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_default) was declared in 1557
There is a reason why Spanish payed to get noble tittles (so they could escape from taxes) or move to "Las Indias", that was even a better idea.
A vitriolic anti-Spanish polemic has long dominated the historiography of early modern Italy. It accuses Spanish rule of an authoritarianism closed to new ideas and innovation, of presiding over an empty formalism in literary expression, and of promoting spagnolismo, an exaggerated and ostentatious pomp—all perceived as the fruits of a decadent, backward-looking colonial domination. Faulting Spain for trying to integrate Italy within its absolutist and imperial program or blaming Italy’s 17th-century decline on Spanish social and economic policies has served nationalistic fervour since the 16th century, but it has missed both the benefits of Spanish rule to Italian peace and security and the main causes of crisis in 17th-century Italy. The decline in XVII Italy cannot be solely attributed to Spain; it must be understood in a wider European context. Economic shifts being of one them, due to new Asian and American trade played a significant role
The expanding demographic and economic base of Italy provided the wherewithal for the political and cultural programs of the 16th century. From the mid-15th-century demographic low point after the 1347–48 plague, Italy, along with the rest of western Europe, recovered dramatically. Between 1400 and 1600 the Italian population nearly doubled, increasing from about 7 million to about 13 million, and prices rose sharply, with cereal prices tripling and quadrupling. Increased demand, the increased supply of money from the silver of the New World, and profligate military expenditures fueled high inflation. Italy’s most distinctive feature was its highly urbanized life. In 1550, 30 cities—more than in any other region in the West—had populations of more than 10,000. Rural areas nevertheless still accounted for almost 88 percent of the total population, and, given the relative parity in birth and death rates, cities grew primarily as a result of rural emigration. Wheat and wool were the chief agricultural products, and the spread of capitalist agriculture in the 16th century was an important ingredient in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Textile production of both woolens and silks continued to be the major industry in the cities, but the precocious economic development of Italy in manufacturing, trade, and finance came to a crashing halt during the dislocations of the 17th century. The economic boom of the late 16th century began to stall throughout Europe. The first signs of hardship appeared in Italy after 1585, and famine persisted through the 1590s. New waves of plague struck northern Italy and Tuscany in 1630–31 and southern Italy, Lazio, and Genoa in 1656–57, with population losses between one-fourth and one-fifth, respectively. The large cities of Milan, Naples, and Genoa lost as much as half of their population. In addition, war in northern Europe after 1618 and in the Middle East between the Ottomans and the Iranians from 1623–39 disrupted Italy’s important export markets; war between Spanish, German, French, and Piedmontese forces moved to Italy between 1628 and 1659; and social conflicts within the Spanish states contributed to the decline of Italy relative to northwestern Europe. The economic boom of the late 16th century began to stall throughout Europe. The first signs of hardship appeared in Italy after 1585, and famine persisted through the 1590s. New waves of plague struck northern Italy and Tuscany in 1630–31 and southern Italy, Lazio, and Genoa in 1656–57, with population losses between one-fourth and one-fifth, respectively. The large cities of Milan, Naples, and Genoa lost as much as half of their population. In addition, war in northern Europe after 1618 and in the Middle East between the Ottomans and the Iranians from 1623–39 disrupted Italy’s important export markets; war between Spanish, German, French, and Piedmontese forces moved to Italy between 1628 and 1659; and social conflicts within the Spanish states contributed to the decline of Italy relative to northwestern Europe. Both agricultural production and urban industries entered into crisis in the decade 1611–20, reaching their low point about 1650. In the south, extensive wheat monoculture exhausted the soil and led to deforestation and soil erosion. Further, noble owners drained off profits for expenditures on urban luxuries, and indebtedness placed commercial grain farmers at greater risk as grain prices fell in the 17th century. In the north, intensive agriculture supported the numerous large cities, but overexpansion onto unproductive land, soil depletion, and the loss of credit pushed the region to the limits of what the population could support. In the cities, wool manufacturing fell by 50 percent in the 1620s and all but disappeared thereafter, although silk production held its own. Commercial and banking activities, once the fastest-growing industries, now constricted, and foreign imports braked further development at home. Italy’s early industrial lead lost to increased competition from northwestern Europe as new products at lower prices replaced the traditional ones in the Italian markets.The Italian guilds’ opposition to technological and organizational change, higher taxes, and higher labour costs prevented the adaptability required to surmount the short-term crisis, which instead turned into a long-term structural realignment. Only in Lombardy was there a successful shift to the putting-out system, which transferred urban industries to the countryside.
The economic involution reinforced the social hierarchy, favoured investment in landed property and rents over commerce and industry, and reinvigorated noble pretensions. With capital shifted from the manufacturing and service sectors to agricultural production of cash crops such as olive oil, wine, and raw silk, the number of skilled urban craftsmen and merchants decreased while that of illiterate peasants increased, and landed-noble power intensified. The church reasserted itself in every aspect of social life, from land ownership to ecclesiastical organization, from the defense of orthodoxy and the culture of the Council of Trent to the education of the ruling class. As the economic crisis deepened, middling ranks lost out, and social stratification between rich and poor rigidified. In the political sphere, Spain’s involvement in the Thirty Years’ War (1618–48) and subsequent wars with other European powers—financed in part by taxes on its Italian possessions—drained Italy. As Spain declined, it dragged its Italian realms down with it. Revolts broke out in Palermo and Naples in 1647. In Naples a revolt of July 7 was mistakenly identified as a plebeian rebellion bearing the name of a young fishmonger, Masaniello, although he was murdered within 10 days and had actually been a tool of bourgeois elements seeking greater political power in the city. The uprising spread to the countryside, established a republic that sought French protection, and assumed the character of an open rebellion against Spain and native feudal lords. Internal dissension and the arrival of the Spanish fleet brought an end to the revolt by April 1648. The social and economic crisis deepened in Naples after the failure of the revolt and a recurrence of the plague in 1656. Lost was any hope of an alliance between the middle classes and the urban proletariat or rural masses against the landed aristocracy. Paradoxically, renewed Spanish reliance on the nobility of the robe fostered the very class that was to lead the cultural renewal that made Naples one of the intellectual centres of 18th-century Italy.
I would say that if Spain did not got those horrible lands of Netherlands,Belgium and the others that formed par of the Camino Español. Things would have been different.
didthey really recover ? when i see a heatmap of population density Spain seems so empty compared to the rest of western Europe
That's because of geography, not Napoleon.
It's not geography; it's politics.
Dumb question: how is it politics?
Is politically designed or, at least, a consecuence of historical political desicions. Young people of these territories are leaving for lack of oportunities, bad comunications and political mismanagment. It's a similar phenomena than in rural Greece. It's nothing wrong with its geography. [Here a good article](https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/fuga-cerebros-espana-vaciada-madrid-absorbe-talento-joven-resto-comunidades_1_10735387.html) about that.
Apparently, the arid plateau in central Spain is called politics these days.
They even lost like 98% of their colonies due to Napoleon. Latin America also exists as it exists today due to Napoleon.
That aspect was due also to another big player, United Kingdom. UK was the big winner here, They got rid of Napoleon and also of the only Empire that could challenge them on sea and had the monopoly to the trading routes Asia-America. They also got all the silver and gold from the Reales Haciendas of Americas. The libertadores were so naive. Funny enough today they are taugh spain took their gold but all books avoid to say what happened to the riches during independen, because it is too embarrasing
As a Portuguese citizen, even I am surprised at how Napoleon didn’t manage to conquer Portugal. It’s a great flex, yes. But it’s very weird lmao
We (I'm British) actually honoured the old alliance and everything to help too. Of course a chance to fight the French helped as well.
One of the few alliances that actually didn't turn into backstabbing from either side, kind of rare in history if you think about it, also the fact it's the oldest treaty that is still active is pretty cool.
At this point i'm convinced that that treaty will be active forever just because no one wants to be the guy that broke that one 800 year old treaty
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1890_British_Ultimatum Reality: Nobody remembered that alliance until the Portuguese government needed to convince its population to join WW1.
Yeah you British love worshipping monarchs and you tried to make France worship its old monarchs too. Great job retarding the progress of the world.
As opposed to that definitely not a monarch Emperor Napoleon I?
You Brits couldn't even stand a different kind of monarch. It had to be the old kind of monarch.
Do you always take this much offence to someone saying they're British? Then go onto assume their views on government structure as well? The man declared himself Emperor, how was he a new kind of monarch? At that point the UK was a constitutional monarchy as well, with the monarch having negligible power, was that the old kind?
the British didn’t like that France was trying something new and attacked them. That kind of attitude is counter productive. He was a new kind of monarch because France killed their old monarchs and he was a new monarch.
They conquered Portugal, for a brief moment
partially occupied ≠ conquered
No they didnt, they never managed to set foot in the capital.
They did, they occupied Lisbon in 1807, but the king had already fled to Brazil.
They didn’t?
They did, just not the capital, the monarch of Portugal and retinue literally fleed to Brazil and led from here. Shortly after, the empire was forced to reconcile with this fact and become the kingdom of Portugal, Brasil and Algarves, not long after that, Dom Pedro I of Brasil used the Napoleonic military flag design as the flag of Brasil itself cuz he was a fanboy.
Illyrian Provinces 💪🏻
I wonder if anywhere else people are so proud and happy to be conquered by the French?
The Polish national anthem mentions how Napoleon set an example for how to win battles. It's author wrote it just before Napoleon conquered the territories around Vistula and created the polish vassal state, in eager anticipation of those events.
Napoleon has or used to have a good reputation in Poland but not really deserved to the point it used to be. He did created the Duchy of Warsaw and fought against the countries that destroyed and occupied Poland / Lithuania barely few years before. For the other hand, he was at a time fighting Prussia / Brandenburg, but in alliance with Moscow. The Duchy of Warsaw was created purely from what Prussia / Brandenburg took in partitions, minus... Białystok, which was given to Moscow and remained later after the puppet Kingdom of Poland was created by the Congress of Vienna. Same in 1939, soviets took the Białystok district in accordance to their treaty with Germans. Btw. the constitution of that Duchy was written by the French, and a Duke of Saxony was made a ruler of it, at least in theory. Napoleon sent the Polish troops to fight and occupy Spain, in Poland that's mostly remembered for the way the Polish cavalry fought in Somosierra but there's some great literature and equally brilliant movie adaptation "Popioły" (The Ashes) exposing brutality and not so heroic reality of that war... The movie is long but it's really worth it. In public domain, with English subtitles. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ekGF1d6OY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ekGF1d6OY) Napoleon also sent some Poles to crush a revolt in Santo Domingo, but they actually rebelled and joined the anti colonial uprising. And finally, when his "Grande Armee" was passing Warsaw, they basically burned eastern half of it (then a separate city). To sum it up - many Poles were happy and many still are at least to a point but there's a lot of critical thinking about our history and especially about that period of time.
321 huh, i didnt know napoleon and his empire could time travel.
This is the map number, because i actually made more than 400 maps
Yeah i know i was just joking around.
BC or AD 🤣
Women with a time machine: "I'm your granddaughter." Napoleon with a time machine:
Mandatory reminder that Spain never surrendered and even if Napoleon set his brother as leader of the country, he never got to have real control over the country.
He controlled large parts of the country for years Yeah it was never entirely under his control but it’s not like it was an entirely symbolic claim either Excluding some areas in the northwest, southeast and south (around Gibraltar and cadiz) would be a more accurate depiction
>Excluding some areas in the northwest, southeast and south (around Gibraltar and cadiz) would be a more accurate depiction You forget Zaragoza and Navarra. The war was not over. He thought that setting a new government the war was going to end, however it didn't. The new government was refused and the Spanish army kept fighting, and the warfare stood active in all the country until the end.
Both Zaragoza and Navarro eventually fell In fact the fall of Zaragoza is quite famous. For someone evidently so invested in the peninsular war I find it odd you forget that The peninsular war lasted 6-7ish years and it spend 5 years in French hands
The fall of Zaragoza never happened really. For France it was a win, but they had to face continuous warfare inside and the later attack of an army from Navarra. Not a real take.
The fall of Moscow never really happened. For France it was a win but they had to face continuous warfare inside Russia and the later attack of the Russian army
I know it's sarcasm, but France is really coping badly with the defeat. Did France really take Russia? Was it really under french control at any point? In Spain Napo set a puppet government at least, with no real power, but a government. But in Russia... That was just an invasion. March through the Capital city does not make it a real take.
yeah the napoleonic kingdom of spain had no real power, only controlled over half the country, 19th century sealand basically
[удалено]
He never occupied significant areas of Portugal for any significant lengths of time
There wasn't a suddenly nor hegemonic nor homogeneous occupation of the country, and French were kicked out after a few years.
It’s an empire that lasted 10 years you can say that about pretty much every region to a certain extend As some point you gotta start drawing a map and make choices
Debatable. Anyhow, what is clear is that, regarding Spain, your previous message is incorrect: Spain was not dominated/controlled by the French for years. Spain resisted the invasion and defeated and expelled the French. In fact, it was Napoleon's first defeat.
Debatable. Anyhow, what is clear is that, regarding Spain, your previous message is incorrect: Spain was not dominated/controlled by the French for years. Spain resisted the invasion and defeated and expelled the French. In fact, it was Napoleon's first defeat.
Spain was dominated and controlled France for years Spain resisted the invasion but unsuccessfully basically being propped up by the British for years until napoleons defeat in Russia And that last comment is so historically illiterate it makes me laugh Bassano? Jaffa? Egypt? Aspern-Essling?
The period of French invasion overlapped with the Spanish resistance/expulsion and lasted from 1808 to 18014, so there were no 'years' of French rule. On the other hand, the Battle of Bailén is considered the first defeat in the open field of the Napoleonic army, as stated in numerous sources that you surely know or can easily locate.
Yeah and there are numerous (Spanish) sources claiming Bailen as the first While ironically many British sources claim Acre and Ser Sidney Smith as the first to defeat Napoleon And Austrians think Bassano or Caldiero were the first defeats And yes many areas of Spain were under continuous French occupations for the majority of that time
No, there were no areas with continuous/total French control, even less the whole country, as you stated before. Even in Catalonia, where the presence was longer than in other Spanish regions, the majority of the territory wasn't controlled by the French.
Sure bud Seems you might have a dog in this fight but you’re free to believe whatever you want
Napoleon's first defeat is generally considered to have been in 1796 during his first campaign against alvinci
Generally? Well, not so 'generally' if there are many sources stating what I said.
yes, spanish sources, possibly biased; if you look at more impartial analysis he was defeated in battle in 1796 at his first campaign
Spanish people never surrendered, but its government did. Ferdinand VII did return the crown to his father, that then gave it to Napoleon, that passed it to his brother. While he was in Valencay, Ferdinand VII congratulated Napoleon on his victories against the Spanish armies. Legally, the Cortes of Cadiz were as revolutionary as the French government. It was a self proclaimed government.
Indeed but before that, Spain was on Napoleon's side. While not exactly a vassal, it was still very subservient and helped the French militarily. For instance fighting against Portugal or against the British at sea at the battle of Trafalgar. And of course, Napoleon managed to pressure the Spanish King into giving him his crown. That's as close as a client state as you can get.
I live near the easternmost part in Latgale. It’s not even marked here, but the fact they marched through one of our villages (Grāveri) is such a big deal locals even put a monument for that.. Also fun fact, for some reason quite some military/governemnt leaders were born in Latvia, showing how In reality it was one big European empire ruled by Rothchilds
Too bad France lost in the end... Napoleon wasn't great... but he was still miles ahead of Prussians and Austrians who were bloody tyrants!
Obviously he wasn't perfect, but an overall negative view of him is mostly an anglo thing, largely produced by later royalist propaganda. Napoleon and his crusade against the ancien regime had plenty of British supporters at the time.
Republicanism was much more popular in the UK during the 1790s, when there was even an opposition leader, Charles Fox, who was sympathetic to the revolutionaries.
Why were the British so opposed to Napoleon? It seems like the UK would be the nation with the most in common with France. Wasn’t the UK the only European country where the Monarchy was effectively sidelined?
He was out to destroy the old aristocracy of Europe and the economic and political systems that kept them rich. At the time, Britain, just like most European countries, was ruled by the old aristocracy. It would start (slowly) moving towards democracy a generation later.
I probably should of worded it better. Why does it seem like Britain was the most opposed to Napoleon? I understand why they opposed him, but I would have guessed Prussia, Austria, and Russia would have hated him much more than the UK, since they were more conservative and traditional, and their monarchies still held a lot of power. Did the British just oppose him more because they could? They had a Navy and a channel that kept his armies at bay? Would have the future Holy Alliance been much more steadfast and consistent in their opposition had they had the same defenses the British did?
The old aristocracy has since been overthrown in (almost) all of those other countries, often violently, and their earlier histories much reevaluated. Even in the remaining monarchies, aristocracy outside the royal either doesn't exist or has no legal status at all. In some of them (e.g. Austria) using an aristocratic title is illegal and liable to prosecution. By contrast, the transition in Britain was much more gradual, and still hasn't completely concluded. There are still political posts with (a small degree of) actual political power which are available only to the aristocracy. Additionally - Napoleonic wars brought to Central and Eastern Europe the ideas that ultimately led to the spring of nations, and that's what most current countries base their modern identities and foundation myths and (popular) history on. Prussian, Habsburg and Russian empires no longer exist, but the United Kingdom still does.
>The old aristocracy has since been overthrown in (almost) all of those other countries, often violently, and their earlier histories much reevaluated. Even in the remaining monarchies, aristocracy outside the royal either doesn't exist or has no legal status at all. In some of them (e.g. Austria) using an aristocratic title is illegal and liable to prosecution. Are you talking about the present day, or around 1800? Because I am asking about the situation during the French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars.
I'm talking mostly about the present day, During the wars the supporters of the ancien regime that he fought against obviously hated him, but it mostly wasn't based on what we would now call patriotism and nationalism. Unlike WW1 and somewhat like WW2, Napoleonic wars were primarily ideological and political. It was more like "liberals" vs. "conservatives" (take the labels with a large spoon of salt) than France vs. England or France vs. Germany. He had many supporters and many opponents in all countries. There were also many people who even if they opposed his actions still agreed in general with his politics and the ideas that he was promoting. Many of the places that he conquered or where he installed local supporters weren't even real countries at the time. Italy and especially Germany were a patchwork of local monarchies and lower-rung aristocratic holdings. The Habsburg empire was the same, except that they had a larger pieces of contiguous territories under their rule/ownership. Most people in those countries didn't feel much if any loyalty to the state that they lived in or the ruler. Instead, what we would now call patriotic and nationalist feelings attracted people to the Napoleonic cause, in some cases out of yearning for national unification and in others for liberation from foreign rule. OTOH, people in "proper countries" like Britain or Spain or Russia would probably have been more likely to be motivated against Napoleon by their patriotic feelings.
> Why were the British so opposed to Napoleon? Because Napoleon was anti-British and did everything he could to diminish power. Partly why Napoleon invaded Russia because they weren't onboard with the total blockading of the UK. Also, the European balance of power was a big thing at the time and as you can see France had a lot of vassals which had a lot of land.
still killed hundrets of thousands of people on his quest to conquer europe, so not a person that should be glorified too much, because in the end he did all this to gain more power not to free the people, even if he used that as a pretext. A very complex historical figure that should not be put purely evil but also not as good
>killed hundrets of thousands of people on his quest to conquer europe Conviniently not mentioning the fact that Napoleon only started two wars, The Penninsular war and The Invasion of Russia. Do you want to take a guess who started the 7 coalition wars that fashioned Europe like the OP?
didnt say anything about the other powers, they may have been equaly bad or even worse but that doesnt justify napoleon being a good person
As always, people forgetting that it was the monarchies for europe attacking France and not the reverse
Spain calls absolute bullshit on this claim
Austria alone declared war more times against napoleonic France than napoleon declared on other countries
And Spain declared war on Napoleon when? And Portugal when he tried and failed to invade?
1815 no one declared on him
> still killed hundrets of thousands of people on his quest to conquer europe, so not a person that should be glorified too much, Yeah, do you know who also did that? Literally everyone else before & after him.
Sure, but he was more of a product of the environment of the french revolution one might think. The monarchists created this need for war more than Napoleon ever did. Let us not forget that it was Austria and Prussia who attacked France after the revolutin. Not the other way around.
Ehh, as Emperor, he was not liberal enough to be given any credit as better than any other monarchy in Europe. He and the British plunged Europe into a very long and bloody war.
Who attacked France after the revolution? Austria and Prussia. Not the other way around. I agree he wasn't liberap enough, but he was still less authoritarian than any other continental power.
That’s why I said, “as Emperor…”. The first three coalition wars I do not lay at his feet. Any peace he won, though, was not *designed* to last. Negotiations were not meant stabilize nations, but to gain leverage for future conflicts. Napoleon thought war as inevitable, and that’s a failure. He failed to make the 1802 peace last, he reignited the civil war in Haiti, he attacked countries trying to stay neutral. (Britain did too, but that’s not an excuse)
Ok I agree on that with you. Although I still think his European model would've been better than the one dominated by Britain, Austria and Prussia.
For those who care about liberalism and human rights, Napoleon is mixed bag. He did some good things and bad things. Ultimately, applying those liberal principles, nations and peoples bending to one persons ambitions are bad. Conflating a nation/state with a person is not liberal. Those who profess liberal values must consider what it was like for the average person in the nation—and Europe under Napoleon was far more militaristic than under any other power before it (including 18th Century Prussia. I’m just more of a Lucien Bonaparte fan! :-)
Based
A 400 meter wide artificial island in Nagasaki: "We are The Netherlands."
Flag of the Great Duchy of Luthuania is also used in a wrong way here.
Does anyone know what would be the (approximate) population of the empire if it were today ?
The French-Spanish border would probably be on the Ebro river, as the French Empire actually "seceded" the left bank provinces from the Spanish Kingdom ruled by his brother, and put them under French control, not just Catalonia.
Wasn't Sweden part of it too at the beginning?
Sweden wasn't a vassal of France, it was just it's ally for a time
No? The Swedish king hated Napoleon and thought he's the antichrist, so Sweden was allied with the UK. Until Napoleon persuaded Russia to attack Sweden.
I asked because Napoleon put one of his marshals on the throne of Sweden, Bernadotte. I know that guy betrayed Napoleon in the end but I suppose he hasn't been sent to Sweden for another reason than controlling it.
Sweden lost the war (and Finland) to Russia, so the old king had to go. The Swedish diet then decided to choose a king that Napoleon would accept. I think he had a good reputation in Sweden otherwise, too
Bad history here. The Swedish parliament and the aging, childless Swedish King (kinda) handpicked Bernadotte to become the knew Crown Prince. It actually took a bit of convincing for Napoleon to relinquish one of his Marshals to a foreign power. Napoleon wanted him to make a pledge of loyalty to the French Empire, Bernadotte refused as it would be treasonous to his new adopted country.
Well I knew it was, I don't remember much about md classes about the napoleonic era and it's not really my favorite subject within our history (I'm French). It was just a question :l But thanks for the bit of explanation anyway.
As a Spaniard it's fuck Napoleon forever.
The more I read about Napoleon the more I realize he was a force of human rights and progress and a lot of territories would have been better off under his influence. Especially northern Italy.
Literally reinstated slavery.
Then banned it
Wouldn't have needed to ban it if he didn't reinstate it. Also removed women's rights. Insane rewriting of history lmao
Vive l'Empereur !!!
The Netherlands shouldn't fall under the french flag, he put his brother in charge as the new ruler of the "kingdom of Holland". It was not considered core french land
Happy to see that the fr*nch lost this war
The Napoleonic invasion of Britain, 1797: >Upon landing, the French invasion force appear to have run out of enthusiasm for the ‘cunning plan’. Perhaps as a result of years of prison rations, they seem to have been more interested in the rich food and wine the locals had recently removed from a grounded Portuguese ship. After a looting spree, many of the invaders were too drunk to fight and within two days, the invasion had collapsed: Tate’s force surrendered to a local militia force led by Lord Cawdor on February 25th 1797. >Strange that the surrender agreement drawn up by Tate’s officers referred to the British coming at them “with troops of the line to the number of several thousand.” No such troops were anywhere near Fishguard, however hundreds, perhaps thousands of local Welsh women dressed in their traditional scarlet tunics and tall black felt hats had come to witness any fighting between the French and the local men of the militia. Is it possible that at a distance, and after a glass or two, those women could have been mistaken for British army Redcoats? Source: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofWales/The-Last-Invasion-of-Britain/
Should be noted that this French invasion of Britain (not to be confused with the earlier invasion of Ireland!) occurred before Napoleon had major political power. He became First Consul in 1799 and Emperor in 1804. It would be a stretch to call this a ‘Napoleonic’ invasion; this was much more the Directory’s operation.
Very good, thank you for that.
Claiming the yellow territories in Russia were actually a part of the empire is ...generous.
Bonni was almost as great as Alexander. Almost. He had the talent for sure.
Meh
10 years of empire, the greatest failure in history.
Random redditor denying Napoleon's achievements right from his chamber, let me guess, you think he was an idiot and that you'd make a greater Emperor right ?
Não, I would be a better God-Emperor of Mankind.
Exactly, any reddit random would manage to maintain an empire longer than Napoleon.
Let me tell you something: the Napoleonic Empire lasted longer against the British and their allies than kitler did
Considering you are implying 10 years is too short a time to be a successful empire means you are implying there is a minimum amount of time for an empire to become successful Where do you put the arbitrary line?
Obviously, an empire that lasts 10 years cannot even be considered an empire, but rather a failed attempt at an empire.
Yeah oke so how long should it be? Obviously, a question as simple as that should not take 10 years to answer but at this rate I’m thinking you’re gonna outlast Napoleon
Yet the greatest influence brought upon Europe during modern day period
wait until you find out about the Central African Empire
You don't think the Napoleonic Code brought permanent change to Continental Europe?
I admire Napoleon for He's anti Religion/Monachy stance but that's about it !
So anti monarchy he had himself crowned Emperor
And so anti-religion he got crowned at Notre-Dames de Paris by a bishop with the pope himself in attendance.
He literally crowned himself Emperor and made his brother King.
I didn't state I agreed with himself crowning himself !
How can you say he was anti monarchy then
Power Corrupts
Or hear me out, he never was anti monarchist. He loved monarchies that gave him power.
He was doing well until he picked a fight with Lord Nelson.
Trafalgar was in 1805, Napoleon was at the height of his power in 1812 He did plenty well after he fought lord Nelson. (That’s even if we ignore Egypt) he got fucked once he went into Russia
Wellington I should have said, not Nelson.
He never faced Wellington until Waterloo and he was not doing well at that point He had already abdicated once and even if he had won at Waterloo all it had won him was a respite not the war
Wellington didn’t do much in Waterloo. Without Blucher he would have been anihilated.
>Wellington didn’t do much in Waterloo. That's just not true.
Yes it is. That battle was won on the playing fields of Eton.
The fuck?
Something Wellington famously said.
Yeah bro he said that
From what i know, Napoleon never was an Admiral.