Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Napoleon on Poland-Russia
"If I had emerged victorious from the Russian campaign, Poland would be a great kingdom, strongly organized, with an army of two hundred thousand men; it would be an impassable barrier for Russia.
I wanted to re-establish the kingdom of Poland as a strong and powerful barrier against the incessant ambition of the Czars. "
"You will see the Russians conquer or enter Europe with four hundred thousand Cossacks and desert tribes, and two hundred thousand Russian soldiers.... Russia must either crumble or expand, and I assume the latter to be more true. These invasions will give two advantages
These invasions will give Russia two clear-cut advantages: further progress in her civilization, the polish that friction with other powers can impart; then money and closer ties between her and the desert dwellers, with whom she was at war a few years ago. The Cossacks, Kalmyks and other barbarians who have followed the Russians into France and other parts of Europe have seen and acquired a taste for our luxury and social amenities; they will bring back to their deserts the intoxicating memory of places where they have had such beautiful women and such excellent food; they will no longer be able to live in their barbaric, barren country, and they will communicate to their neighbors the thought of going to conquer these delicious lands. In all likelihood, a Czar will try to take India and your possessions in Asia away from you, in order to acquire wealth and provide employment for his people; by doing so, he may prevent a revolution in Russia. If he doesn't do this, he'll put himself at the head of some hundred thousand barbarians on horseback, and two hundred thousand infantry, and arrive at the center of Europe, driving everything before him. History confirms my predictions, and shows that whenever the barbarians have taken a liking to the South of Europe, they have come back to conquer it, and ended up making themselves masters of it.
These scoundrels have everything it takes to form excellent armies: they are brave, active, endure fatigue with perseverance, live on very little, are poor and want nothing better than to get rich. In truth, however, everything depends on the final fate of Poland. If Czar succeeds in incorporating Poland into Russia, reconciling the Poles with the Russian government and not simply subjugating the country, he will have taken the greatest step towards conquering territories in Asia.
Distance is nothing, food can easily be transported on camels, and the Cossacks will always be able to procure a fair number of them. They'll find money when they arrive. The hope of conquest would bring together armies of Cossacks and Kalmyks at no cost. Let an intrepid czar offer them the pillage of some of Europe's great cities, and thousands will gather under his banners! Europe, and especially England, should have opposed the reunion of Poland and Russia. . "
About the USA
The English will eventually give way to the United States, and the American government, entrusted to skilful hands and statesmen, will gain in strength. If not, it will seize the opportunity to obtain the means to organize and maintain a larger army, to form a core standing army, and to obtain greater facilities for assembling and training militias. If the Americans get it right, they'll build forts, even squares at a few important points, which will be very useful for the future. This period will give the United States an anti-English impetus that will strengthen our system, and this country will be England's most powerful adversary in the future. It will make her tremble.
<< The United States of America is still under the influence of the common interest of its emancipation from the scepter of England; its existence as a great nation is in labor, and its federal constitution retards its progress.
<< Before fifty years, the spirit of conquest will come to the aid of the central government and give it, through the prestige of military glory, the means of permanently acquiring a parliamentary majority, as well as the strength to overcome, by destroying the principle, the dissidences which exist between the Northern and Southern States, or else the federal bundle will be broken by the interest of locality and by commercial rivalries . "
"In dying, I leave two victors, two hercules in the cradle: Russia and the United States of America. "
To the English doctor "You lost America by emancipation; you lost India by war. The first loss was quite natural: when children grow up, they go their separate ways; but for the Indians, they don't grow up; they always remain children; so the catastrophe will only come from outside. "
Why then don't your (English) ministers make direct, blatant efforts to effect the separation of the Spanish South American colonies from the mother country? In this combination the opportunity You to open will find with the South Americas a very extensive and lucrative trade. If you don't hurry, the Americans will warn you. If You begin now, they will accept the competition: You must close off all communication with France and Spain. "
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
3Opinion
As John Greenleaf Whittier said, “Of all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: 'It might have been!'” What seems to be here is conjecture on how Napoleon imagined the world would develop in the wake of his defeat. There some shrewd insights here, but they beg some questions.
The first is rooted in the specific case of what Napoleon had thought he would accomplish had he defeated Russia and expanded Poland. He seems to have seen it as a barrier to Russia.
To be sure, Poland would have been no friend of Russia. However, to see it as a big player in its' own right - able to keep Russia at bay - seems somewhat problematic.
Poland - even an expanded Poland - would have had neither the territory, the population nor the resources to act as a counterweight to Russia in the way Napoleon seems to imagine here. More likely it would have ended up a satellite to France - and to some extent a drain on French resources - to serve as a buffer against Russia.
Since we cannot be sure of the context in which Napoleon made these remarks, it is not entirely clear what he had in mind. However, at least on the surface, Napoleon seems to have expected more from an independent Poland than likely he would have gotten.
The other point is more general. It is curious when it is seen how much Napoleon grasped the geopolitical context of his era that he did not take advantage of that context.
Clearly, he saw the potential of the United States over the long run. Yet while it is true that the USA was briefly - as a result of the War of 1812 it fought against the UK - a de facto ally of Napoleonic France - Napoleonic France made no serious effort to seek out an alliance with the USA. Thus was lost a huge - if, grant it, unlikely - opportunity to alter the European balance of power.
These are really remarkable insights that are illustrated here. Napoleon's grasp of the geostrategic realities was profound. Yet it must be said, in the end, he made the same mistakes as so many other of Britain's adversaries. It is shows a remarkable blindspot.
All that can be said is that perhaps Napoleon, bathing in the glow of his impressive military successes, fell prey to the sin of hubris and believed that the rules no longer applied to himself. If he had not, the "might have beens" might have been, and with profound historical consequences.
Nightdrot, I can't tell you how pleased I am to read this from you. Firstly, at the risk of surprising you, I agree with your analysis, and secondly, because you say this "These are really remarkable insights that are illustrated here. Napoleon's grasp of the geostrategic realities was profound. Yet it must be said, in the end, he made the same mistakes as so many other of Britain's adversaries. It is shows a remarkable blindspot. ". I'm glad you recognize that Napoleon wasn't just the "sword" of Revolutionary ideology, but that he was a man who had a deep intellectual and geopolitical knowledge of this subject, and that he was a man capable of deep reflection on these matters.
The second thing you say " bathing in the glow of his impressive military successes, fell prey to the sin of hubris and believed that the rules no longer applied to himself. "
is also very true. In fact, Metternich, who cannot be accused of being a Napoleon fan, describes Napoleon as a genius, not only from a military point of view, who was capable of incredible conceptions and analyses, but who at the same time was unable to limit his ambition.
He describes Napoleon as a man who never had enough, who always wanted more grandeur, brilliance and conquest. The more time passed, as Metternich put it, the more Napoleon conceived plans of an excess that made his head spin, and drove him into madness. In short, he explains that Napoleon, this incredible genius, was carried away by his hubris.
Talleyrand said, "What he leaves behind is a collection of acts whose grandiose excess borders on the tragic.
Cont
It's remarkable to note the deep understanding he had of the world and its evolution, as well as his quite incredible political conceptions. Although not everything was perfect, far from it. Unfortunately, I've forgotten his analyses of Italy, Germany and even China. But I think you've read enough to have a pretty clear idea of Napoleon's overall thinking.
To sum up, I can only agree with everything you've said, and even more so when you say that it's curious that this man, who knew geopolitics so deeply, didn't take advantage of it.
Even if you don't like him, wouldn't you have liked to have had an intellectual exchange with him, be it on politics, religion, etc? 😅
Thanks. As far as your question, I think you misunderstand. It is very possible for a person to be deeply intelligent and to have a sense of "the realities," and yet subscribe to an ideology - mistaken or not.
When I note my dislike of Napoleon because of his advocacy of French revolutionary doctrines, I am NOT saying he was unintelligent. Indeed, MANY highly intelligent men will often subscribe to mistaken ideas.
Indeed, while I am in ferocious disagreement with French revolutionary doctrines, those doctrines were defined and developed by many highly intelligent men. See also the likes of Rousseau. Those doctrines were themselves highly complex notions of the nature of man and how societies developed across history.
Bottom line, you bet I would have enjoyed an intellectual exchange with Napoleon. Not only because of where he stands as an historical figure, but because it would be fascinating to see why he came to the conclusions that he did and to both challenge and be challenged by him.
Anyhow, I hope all is well. Great to hear from you.
" After me, the Revolution, or rather the ideas that made it, will resume its work with new force. It will be like a book whose reading is taken up again on the page where it was left off. Then, if skilful hands do not dig a bed for the tor****, and dam up its course, it will flood its banks far and wide, covering them with deplorable and immense debris.
These doctrines, the so-called principles of 1789, will forever be a threatening weapon for the malcontents, the ambitious and the ideologues of all times. There are only two ways to avert the danger: either divert people's attention elsewhere, and clearly block the way to pamphlets, newspapers and even books. If you are not strong enough or skilled enough to do this, you must resign yourself to compromising with these so-called institutions, these indestructibles, in a word, try to live with them. This is what will happen when I'm no longer there, we may even try, with some semblance of success, but it won't last; we are a nation made for glory, what am I saying, for all glories, from that of Corneille and Bossuet to that of Condé or Turenne, but governments so poorly called weighted will only ever be for us the shortest line to anarchy. The ancien régime is impossible to re-establish; I have given France an era of glory, by raising her armies to a height unknown in modern times; all I foresee for her on my tombstone is a lower Empire or new struggles with Europe, where she will eventually succumb. "
The nation was exhausted, suffering for the second time in less than eighteen months under the yoke of the foreigner, and the feeling of its powerlessness favored the most complete destruction of the work of the Revolution and the imperial edifice. What 1793 had done, it was necessary to dare to do again, to replace the revolutionary tribunals with the old provost courts, to re-establish the parliaments and provincial constituencies, the old nobility, to do for the new what the Revolution had done for the old, to annul all sales of national property, finally to return to the nobility and the clergy their power and wealth, to dismiss the army and recreate it with elements entirely devoted to the king ; This was easy: the Vendée, the Chouannerie and the foreign armies offered more French enemies of the Revolution than it took to create a fine army of a hundred thousand men under arms, more than it took to contain the population; and then the foreign armies would powerfully help to destroy anything that reminded them of the passage of the Republic or the Empire. Louis XVIII would have been consistent in adopting this system from the moment he dated the Saint-Ouen declaration to the nineteenth year of his reign. A Bourbon must feel in his heart an insurmountable repugnance to abdicate the white plume of Henri IV and Louis XIV; it is impossible for him to consent in good faith to take on the colors of a revolution that has shattered his scepter and thrown to the wind the debris of eight hundred years of work.
Cont
Saint-Cyr was right when he said to the king in 1814: "If you want the army to be yours, let it have its flag"; but the king was also right: "I cannot change mine without forfeiting the honor of my race". All in all, his unforgivable fault is to have kept the army, and even my guard, by wanting men whose blood had been shed for twenty-five years for the cause of the Revolution to be instantly transformed, by mechanical obedience to an order of the day, into soldiers of the counter-revolution. To see such things is to have no knowledge of mankind, to be completely oblivious to the march of social intelligence, to believe oneself to be in the twelfth century, and to see in the masses of the people only herds of humans, as in the days when young barons learned the handling of arms by slashing or beheading their vassals. If the king had understood the feelings of the army, I wouldn't have made it from Cannes to Paris in twenty days. "
" Wretches, they don't see that I have extinguished the Revolution, and that I have worked for twenty years to channel its principles. They will see that, after me, they will no longer be strong enough to stop the tor**** which, in a few years' time, will sweep them all away. "
These texts are also by Napoleon, and it's astonishing to note the extent to which he imagined what the Kings of France had to do to counter revolutionary ideas and reassert their throne. He also had no illusions about the ideas and consequences of the revolution.
Well, not sure what you are trying to say. Either he was aware and chose those consequences, or he was less aware than he presumed himself to be. Either way, he helped unleash ideas not all of which by themselves were necessarily wrong, but in their totality have had some serious - and often negative - consequences.
Hope all is well.
I just wanted to say that, reading these two texts, it's clear that Napoleon understood the consequences of revolutionary ideals.
I hope you're going well, to give your family a big hug for me!
Why did this man, who had a deep understanding of the world and "international relations", cause so much bloodshed? Why couldn't he stop what he had accomplished in 1801, which was already prodigious: he had stopped the mad revolution, stopped the civil war, restored the French economy, made peace with the whole of Europe, and covered his country in glory. Why didn't he stop there? Why did he always want more?
Thanks and right back at ya.
Oh, and as @matthias345 is tangentially related to your last point, if you get the chance, respond to her.
Otherwise, as I say, always a pleasure.
@Matthias345 There are surely several causes that can explain why Napoleon acted as he did. But to sum up, I'll come back to what Nightdrot said, Metternich, Talleyrand, Hubris. He was intoxicated by so much success. Napoleon said after his first Italian campaign: "I saw myself for the first time, no longer as a mere general, but as a man called to influence the fate of peoples. I saw myself in History. "
Thank you @julie4Julie for your reply.
@nightdrot , you seem both quite impressed by what Napoleon was able to foresee and his ability to understand the geopolitics of his time , and at the same time you seem surprised that he had this ability to analyze things.
@Matthias345 Sorry, I am not sure what you are suggesting. The distinction I make regarding Napoleon is that while he was a solid analyst - and practitioner - of realpolitik, in the end he subscribed to doctrines that, I would argue, were (and are) fundamentally flawed.
Indeed, I would argue that part of Napoleon's ultimate failures is that while he was able to read his strategic situation with great accuracy, in the end it was not only hubris that brought him down, but the French revolutionary principles.
Those principles, at their root, argued that man could be re-shaped according to an a priori plan. Arguably, Napoleon, by his statesmanship, re-shaped human character. Except that in the end that character proved to be less malleable that Napoleon assumed.
His victories were real, but they could not be enduring because the character and cultures of those he conquered were not as easily defeated as their militaries proved to be.
@nightdrot I had the impression that you were surprised by Napoleon's analytical skills. But I'm on your side, I don't like him either.
@Matthias345 No, you can be intelligent and mistaken.
A different example. I am a huge fan of Henry Kissinger. His view of foreign policy is realpolitik and - for lack of a better term - a pre-1914 sense of international relations.
Funny thing is, he was right - but at the wrong time. The Second World War and the Cold War were ideological conflicts. (Not unlike the wars of the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars.) That is not to say that they did not have realpolitik - see also balance of power, spheres of influence, etc. - elements.
Rather, that underlying their motives was a different conception of human nature and thus of the international order that flowed from it. (Face it, a German victory in 1918 would have meant something VERY different from a German victory in 1945.)
Kissinger was right - but at the wrong time. His policies stabilized the Cold War to some extent - see also detente, the SALT treaties, etc. - but in the end they enhanced the Soviet position and demoralized the USA and the West generally.
It took Mr. Reagan to, in effect, re-moralize the Cold War in order for the West to ultimately prevail. Once communism was discredited, the USSR collapsed and the Cold War ended in a Western victory.
CONT.
Yet now we face a world much more like 1914. (As one wag put it, the Chinese are less interested in Marx in theory than Lenin in power.) Indeed, because the West is applying a Cold War ideological model to China, the Chinese have been able to exploit Western philosophy to their economic - and thus military and strategic - advantage.
For example, recall Adam Smith's famous phrase, "The merchant has no country." The Chinese have been using the very free market tools that allowed the West to win the Cold War to actually create Western dependence upon itself.
Napoleon was extremely intelligent. However, he subscribed to an ideological model that justified his power but that was ultimately flawed. Man is not mere raw material to be re-shaped by the institutions of society.
Napoleon failed to grasp this and thus, in the end, he failed to end resistance to his cause. Indeed, my hunch - and it is pure speculation, to be sure - is that had France defeated Russia in 1812, France would have bled itself white trying to dominate the restive populations under its' rule.
Indeed, part of that being France's own fault. The very nationalism Napoleon espoused could - and ultimately has been - evolved in the other states that France opposed.
I have nothing to add to what you have said. I was surprised that Julie agreed with you. 😂
@Matthias345 Well, I am not sure that she entirely did. However, one thing I will say about her. She is thoughtful, intelligent, nuanced and patriotic. She is proud of her heritage and her country and whatever my differences with her on philosophical questions, I admire her for that.
Also, if I may say, it has been a pleasure chatting with you, as well.
@nightdrot
I am obliged to share with you, these words of Napoleon on religion, it is a little long, but read it, it should surprise you.
"My victories make you believe in me, well, the universe makes me believe in God. I believe because of what I see, because of what I feel. (...) Yes, there is a divine cause, a sovereign reason, an infinite being, this cause is the cause of causes, this reason is the creative reason of intelligence. (...) I look at nature, I admire it and I say to myself: There is a God... There is an infinite being compared to whom I, Napoleon, with all my genius, am a real nothing, a pure nothingness The Catholic religion has advantages that will always make me prefer it to any other. It is one, it has never changed, and it cannot change. It is not the religion of one man or another, but the truth of the councils and popes, which goes back without interruption to Jesus Christ, its author. It has all the characteristics of a natural thing and a divine thing; it hovers above passions and vices; it is a sun that illuminates our soul with mystery and majesty. Its virtue is a hidden virtue, which is within man like the sap within trees".
Superficial minds see a resemblance between Christ and the founders of empires, conquerors and gods of other religions. There is no such resemblance. There is an infinite distance between Christianity and any other religion. "The greatest minds, since the appearance of Christianity, have had faith, and a living faith, a practical faith in the mysteries and dogmas of the Gospel, not only Bossuet and Fénelon, whose state it was to preach it, but Descartes and Newton, Leibnitz and Pascal, Corneille and Racine, Charlemagne and Louis XIV".
Cont
Science and philosophy are useless for salvation, and Jesus only comes into the world to reveal the secrets of Heaven and the laws of the mind. So he deals only with the soul, he talks only with the soul, and he brings his Gospel to the soul alone. The soul is enough for him, just as he is enough for the soul. With him, the soul has regained its sovereignty. (...) "
Napoleon continued: "How many years did Caesar's empire last? How long was Alexander carried by the enthusiasm of his soldiers? (...) Peoples pass, thrones crumble, and the Church remains! What is the strength that keeps this Church standing, assailed by the furious ocean of the century's anger and contempt? What is the arm that, for eighteen hundred years, has preserved it from so many storms that have threatened to engulf it? (...) Whether speaking or acting, Jesus is luminous, immutable, impassive. The sublime, it is said, is a trait of the Divinity: what name can be given to the one who unites in himself all the traits of the sublime? The greatest miracle of Christ, without question, is the reign of charity. All those who sincerely believe in him feel this admirable, supernatural, superior love".
Yes, our existence shone with all the brilliance of the diadem and sovereignty; and yours, Bertrand, reflected this brilliance as the dome of the Invalides, gilded by us, reflects the rays of the sun... But the setbacks came, the gold gradually faded... The rain of misfortune and outrages, with which I am showered every day, washed away the last of it. We're nothing but lead now, General Bertrand, and soon I'll be earth. Such is the destiny of great men! That of Caesar and Alexander, and we are forgotten! And the name of a conqueror, like that of an emperor, is no more than a school theme! Our exploits fall under the spell of a pedant who praises or insults us!"
Cont
And Napoleon concludes: "On what have we based our power? On strength. Whereas Jesus Christ founded his empire on LOVE, and thousands of men would gladly give their lives for Him! Here is a conqueror who incorporates not a nation, but humanity, into himself. What a miracle... The more I think about it, the more absolutely convinced I am of the divinity of Jesus Christ."
Believe it or not, I was aware of this. Yet in the end, what did Napoleon's words amount to in practice. Famously he took the crown out of the Pope's hands and put it on his own head, Thus breaking the practice of linking monarchy to the moral authority of the church. Napoleon respected the power of religious belief and used religion to further his political goals.
Be that as it may, though, at the end of the day, his war advanced the cause of French revolutionary ideals and those were, in the end, hostile to the teachings of the Church. In the end, for Napoleon, however sincere his personal beliefs, he made the Church an instrument of the state and subordinated to his ambition.
You may find this article of interest: www.history.com/.../napoleon-catholic-church-kidnap-pope-pius-vii
@nightdrot
I don't quite agree with you. But never mind, I'm going to be away for 1 or 2 days so I won't come back to the subject here. But even if I don't answer I'd be curious to know in your opinion why Napoleon chose Notre Dame for the coronation, do you really think it's just a question of Napoleon's ego? I won't answer, but I'll read your answer anyway.
It was a pleasure to talk as always.
I hope you and your family are well, give them my love.
Have a good trip. Hope the next two days are for fun and pleasure.
As far as your question, I don't doubt that Napoleon saw Notre Dame as a famous landmark in French history. A place where the powerful - royalty included - were celebrated and he was putting himself in that tradition.
It was not ego - though it could have been that too. Rather it was about investing in his coronation the gravitas and "divine sanction" that French leaders before him had received. He was, in effect, showing that his coronation was of equal standing and legitimacy to those that had come before him.
Notre Dame had been much in the center of French history and Napoleon was taking that center stage.
@nightdrot I don't think Napoleon was sincere in his statement about religion. Napoleon was thinking of his posterity. In fact, he once declared: "It was by making myself Catholic that I ended the Vendée War, by making myself Muslim that I established myself in Egypt, and by making myself ultramontane that I won over the spirits in Italy. If I governed the Jewish people, I would re-establish Solomon's temple". This is a very utilitarian conception of religion: it is not to be fought and destroyed like the revolutionaries, but used to strengthen the state and guarantee citizens' obedience to civil power.
I recognize from his speech on Religions that Napoleon was quite an orator, and I understand why so many people were prepared to sacrifice themselves for him.
But I'm astonished to have read the Great Churchill himself, despite all his criticisms of Napoleon, admit to having a certain admiration for Napoleon.
@Matthias345 To the last point, again, you can admire someone for the qualities and skills they demonstrate even if you do not necessarily agree with them. It is a nuanced world - not all black and white.
As to Napoleon's religious views, as I believe I noted above, taking the crown from the Pope and placing it on his own head gives you some sense of where Napoleon stood on religion. In the end, he subscribed to the idea implied in French revolutionary doctrine that man was his own god and that he could remake God in his own image.
I didn't at all. It really shows a great grasp of geopol that he could foresee the future so clearly.
It causes a question in my mind. It is normal for rulers to have advisors and often they are more significant than the nominal King they advise. Bismark is one such.
With Napoleon did he have significant advisors? Were these forecasts the outcome of intense discussions over decades with advisors or more the outcome of Napoleon's mind alone after decades of intense thought? The impression I have is it was all Napoleon because that is the way history has been written but simply I don't know.
I'd like your view.
Of course Napoleon had advisors he listened to. But then he drew his own conclusions. For example, Talleyrand, who was Napoleon's foreign minister, disagreed with him about Poland, and so on. Napoleon was, above all, a man who knew a great deal about history; he read a great deal, and even when he went to a battlefield, he knew the history of the place perfectly well. Add to that the fact that he had been involved in politics at close quarters. All this together certainly gave him analytical skills superior to others.
Napoleon had a superior intelligence, but he was taken by hybris.
I find very interesting the idea he develops of wanting to make Poland a barrier against Russia. 200 years later, NATO is expanding right up to Poland's borders.
Yes, I was taken by that as well and it seems very prescient 200 years on. The Polish/Lithuanian commonwealth was quite close to his time (ending 1795) to give us a little credit. It is hard for us to see Poland or Lithuania or both in combination as a major European & modern power at our distance now.
In what way did Talleyrand disagree with Napoleon on Poland etc?
The other thing of interest is the negative emphasis on Russia and the Czar. It is seeming that he was seeing dealing with Russia as a must do for good reason and not merely as the only place left to complete his collection of conquered countries. Perhaps not so much hubris but solid logical analysis?
Poland was quite keen on Napoleon.
He did have a very development geopolitical understanding.