Do you think that the French Revolutionary Wars and that of the empire, are they only ideological wars?

[Julie4]

[Ευδεμονια]

I think honestly French Revolutionary Wars have been ideological wars, since they were meant to spread the words of revolution “Libertè, Fraternitè, Egalitè”.
On the other hand, the First Empire wars were meant to affirm the role of France and the will of Napoleon, they lost a part of the sense of the Revolution since some things were modified. They were ideological wars but with another intention, since the spreading ideology was the “French civilisation” (with laws and regulations Napoleon introduced) and the idea that Ancien Regime monarchies were outdated by a new type of monarchy that was redesigning Europe borders.

[Julie4]

Yes, however, on closer inspection, the revolutionary and Imperial conquests correspond to the territory that the Kings of France themselves wish to see to protect France from invasion.

Although in the war of the revolution and the empire there is ideology, in fact they only resume the objectives of the French monarchy.

[Ευδεμονια]

Yea, sure conquests are always meant to both spread the word (revolutionary or imperial) and to assure France a pillow zone.

Ideology is meant to be the justification for war, but effectively the objective of empire and monarchy are basically the same (supremacy over the powers of the area and legitimation).

[Julie4]

Yes it is exactly that, it is quite funny to see that the revolutionaries who wanted to be totally opposed to the monarchy has in fact realized at least for a short period, all the ambitions of the monarchy lol.

Oh forgive my bad English

[Ευδεμονια]

Oh yes, very ironic! And it’s ironical also the fact Revolution, that was opposing all forms of tyranny, has evolved first in a form of bloody tyranny (Robespierre Terror) and then in an Empire (so a form of government similar to the ones of Ancien Regime).

Don’t ask for forgiveness, we’re not at school and we’re both not mother language English speakers so errors are behind the corner 😂

[Julie4]

Yes exactly, as a French person I have always been mixed on the French revolution.

What is your nationality?

[Ευδεμονια]

Ah sure, but every country has its controversial moments.

I’m Italian! My country’s history has a strong bound with yours, we have a debt with Revolutionary France and Napoleon.

[Julie4]

I have always said that if I had not been born French I would have wanted to be Italian. I consider that Italy is the country that is culturally closest to France.

And Italy has inspired France so much, for example one of the greatest ministers in French history was Mazarin but he was Italian. He educated Louis XIV.

There is also a constancy between the monarchy, the revolutionaries and the empire they all wanted to possess the Italian territories. 🤣

You mean Napoleon III?

[Ευδεμονια]

Our countries are cousins for a reason! Where I live our local dialect is partly from French, to show the French influence also in our region.

Oh yes Napoleon III had a big role in our independence wars against Austria but Napoleon I has been the first to define Italian confederation during his Italian Champaign… he has been the first to officialise our flag and our nation as a real entity! This was until the was emperor, after the Vienna council restored the status quo, with Metternich defining Italy “a mere geographical expression”

[Julie4]

oh which city in italy are you from?

Yes, to be honest Napoleon 1 although being an admirer of Ancient Rome, he considers that the peoples of Europe had to be under French influence or directly under French domination, moreover he will try as much as possible to "Frenchify" Italian mores , by example by prohibiting Italians from playing cards or having dinner during an opera, which was contrary to French customs.

On the other hand Napoleon III was sincere in his approach, he really believed in the principles of nationalities.

But I am an admirer of Napoleon 1st and it is true that with his civil code and other things he has allowed different countries to progress

[Ευδεμονια]

I’m from Novara, eastern Piedmont.
Yes I know Napoleon was mostly a conqueror but he was the first to really make possible Italian unification by unifying provisionally Italy under his domination and by letting us to know there was a possibility for Italy to be united.
I’m a sincere admirer of Napoleon I too, he’s been a military genius like other few others in history (Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar…) plus he was a innovator for some ways, despite having been him a monarch. I like a lot his figure and his historic personality, and his controversies being him a Corse.

Napoleon III was more a politician than a commander but he helped us a lot and made our nations being really cousins! Unluckily his sense of inferiority towards the uncle has been fatal for him.

[Julie4]

I don't know, but it must be great to live there, me I'm from Bordeaux.

I agree, Napoleon I was a pure genius, not only military. But above all Napoleon understood one very important thing. He understood that the USA and Russia would be the future giants of this world, because of their size and their demography, on this subject he declares on this subject "In dying I leave two winners, two Hercules in the cradle: Russia and the United States of America! " Consequently Napoleon thinks that if France remains at the size of before these conquests she could never count as a great power in the future world in the face of giants such as the USA and Russia, that is also why he will achieve these conquests, to give France sufficient size to remain a giant. Unfortunately it won't happen because there will be Waterloo

Have you heard of the second hundred years war between France and England? a period that begins under Louis XIV and ends in Waterloo, France and England fought for world domination, and in Waterloo the English definitely won.

To partially understand the revolution and the empire, it must be placed in the context of this second Hundred Years War.

I agree with you for Napoleon III

[Ευδεμονια]

Not so great, my place isn’t anything special. Oh Bordeaux, on the Atlantic coast, I’ve never been there!
Napoleon saw good on long time, he had a great perspective on the future of the world. Unluckily he has been stopped on his intent to make France a major world power as Russia or USA.
I haven’t heard about the second hundred war, but effectively France and England had a long period of conflicts for colonies and world domination until Waterloo! Effectively revolution and empire attitude towards battles is better understood with this conception. Very interesting, it’s a perspective on history I never explored.

[Julie4]

As an Italian, are you nostalgic for the Roman Empire? lol

Yes, in England and in France there are many historians who speak or make an analysis of this "second hundred years war".

Under Louis XIV France will build a colonial empire and from the years 1685 possess the first navy of the world, France will try to have the control of the seas, of course such a power will cause a coalition of Europe against France of Louis XIV, but the essential of our empire will be preserved although our navy will be practically destroyed.

At the end of the seven years war (1763) England will take the colonial possessions of France that Louis XIV had created.

The Revolutionaries and Napoleon will try to repair the damage caused by the loss of our empire in 1763.

[Ευδεμονια]

Oh Roman Empire, I can’t define myself as nostalgic since Roman Empire has been in another epoque, it’s not so recent and world was completely different from nowadays. I respect that part of our history, I think Roman Empire has given us a great basis for our modern civilisation but our history as Italy is very short, since it started only 160 years ago and it hasn’t been so… great 😅 I think I feel melancholic about some periods of our history, like the later Middle age, the Renaissance, the history of Venice and Savoy kingdom history. Let’s say Italian unitarian history isn’t as significative as history of the inner components of Italy.

So basically Revolutionary France and First Empire were only a prosecution of objectives against England, after the failures of monarchy! That’s an interpretation I never heard. Usually I hear conference of historians but they focus on events themselves or on Italian history (since they’re italian historian), so this point of view sounds really new to me.

[Ευδεμονια]

Sure I think it has put an end to every conflict of the “second Hundred Years’ War” with alliances between England and France in first years of 1900.

[TwoToTooTutu2]

They were mostly English puppet wars.

[msc545]

Define "ideological wars" please.