Why do we only blame Napoleon for his conquests and not the UK, which also made conquests over the same period?

[Julie4]

[RebelinSteel]

A lot of the territory England gained was from the results of wars that included France and Spain.
For example the Wars of Spanish Succession, and the Treaty of Utrecht gave England Gibraltar and a bunch of other places.
Then people kept messing with Belgium, Holland, Flanders which tends to annoy the English.

Also a lot of stuff that was gained was down to commerce from East India Company and similar.

The majority of the ‘conquests’ made by Britain was from countries such as France and Spain losing wars.
Weird thing is the Treaty of Utrecht led to what was to become the British Crusade.

[Julie4]

I'm talking about the Napoleonic period. The English made conquests by war during the same period lol

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming the UK for defending its interests, the French weren't any nicer or Bad than the English at that time.

But it's a strange way of excusing the conquests of one country and considering another country that does the same thing as a "monster".

[RebelinSteel]

I admit to ChatGPT this bit as it saved googling lol

During the Napoleonic wars we gained the following, the majority were for Naval bases and or protection of trade.
Some were likely just because France had them, the Dutch ones were to reduce the Dutch influence and potential rivalry on the seas, it was like 40 years since English Dutch wars.

Cape Colony: Captured from the Dutch in 1806, this strategic colony in present-day South Africa provided an important naval station on the sea route to India and the East Indies.

Ceylon (Sri Lanka): Initially seized from the Dutch in 1796 during the French Revolutionary Wars, Ceylon was formally ceded to Britain in 1802 by the Treaty of Amiens, which was a short-lived peace agreement between Britain and France.

Malta: Captured in 1800, Malta became a critical naval base in the Mediterranean for the British.

Mauritius (Île de France): Taken from the French in 1810, Mauritius served as an important base in the Indian Ocean.

Heligoland: A small but strategically significant island in the North Sea, taken from Denmark in 1807.

Various Caribbean Islands: During the Napoleonic Wars, Britain also seized several Caribbean islands from the French and their allies, including Tobago, St. Lucia, and parts of the Dutch Caribbean.

[Julie4]

Napoléon Says

" People only shout at France, they only want to see its armies, as if England were not everywhere equally and far more threatening. Heligoland, Gibraltar, Tarifa, Malta, are they not English citadels that threaten the trade of all the powers, more than Danzig threatens Russia?

However, if I left Europe to its own devices, it would surrender to England. Tomorrow, she would give her Corfu and Madeira, just as she already has Cape Town. However, from the rocks of Malta, England already dominates Turkey, and consequently the Black Sea and Russia. At Gibraltar, she holds the gateway to the Mediterranean. If she could seize Corfu, she would have a foothold in Greece and control of the Gulf. This position is staggering, and yet Austria does not want to see the dangers that threaten it, any more than Russia does. France's jealousy is stronger than reason; they don't want to have any foresight. "

[RebelinSteel]

Yeah we did not want Europe, we just needed it contained, why have one continent when you can have the world?

[Julie4]

Of course, it's a little more complex than that, because for reasons of national security, the UK needed to prevent a country from dominating the continent.

But it's curious to blame Napoleon for these conquests, when our British friends did the same thing.

Curiously, one of the great architects of the balance of power was a Frenchman, Mazarin (if you're interested, I've shared a Mytakes about him and his diplomatic work).

[RebelinSteel]

Yes I have read some of yours posts, really interesting. Tbh it’s nice to read a different point of view on everything.
Some of the things we gained from the Treaty of Utrecht did shape the future one of these was Asiento de Negros, it allowed the British to get involved and then realise how horrendous it was, which led in turn to the British Crusade.

[Julie4]

I have a book on Louis XIV of more than 700 pages, and indeed the consequences of the Treaty of Utrecht are considerable.

The British historian Paul Kennedy talks about it in his book too

[RebelinSteel]

Yes Utrecht helped shape the modern world, some was cause and effect, a bit like the Treaty of Versailles pretty much led to WW2, it was the kindling for the fire.

[Julie4]

Exactly. I think this treaty is not studied enough.

[RavVid]

Victors write the history?

There is a story of an unfortunate English gentleman who invested considerable effort interviewing those at Waterloo and cost in modeling the forces at Waterloo. He made arrangements to show it to Wellington who was most displeased by preponderance of Prussian uniforms.

Glory does not like truth.

[Julie4]

I don't blame the British for defending their interests and fighting Napoleon.

France was no more "nice" or "nasty" than the English.

But I don't understand how you can reproach Napoleon for his conquests without reproaching England for the same thing. And I'm not even talking about the Russians lol

[RavVid]

I'd agree with that. There is the concept of who threw the first punch. Despite a Hungarian newspaper headline "Ukraine Attacks Russia", it was objectively Russia that threw the first punch and therefore at fault. So there might be that perspective at play re Napoleon views.

Of course revolutionary France was attacked and UK brought Napoleon to prominence. Without that he might have lived and died in obscurity.

[purplepoppy]

Because the UK wasn't conquering Europe, they were spreading civilisation and hope to places like Africa and other unowned lands.

[Ollieeee]

Lmao 😂

[Mettbltt]

hahaha Are the British who set up a human zoo in Australia?

[DarkLegacy]

Exactly

[DishLady]

Who is "we"? European conquests are usually a pretty even complaint in most circles.

[RyanEC]

It seems even Anglo Saxon people have a degree of respect for Napoleon even though he was an enemy.


I guess if he is vilified it’s because the Anglo Saxon world won out and because more widespread.

[Julie4]

Yes, that's right, even Churchill respected Napoleon.

And personally I don't blame the English for defending their interests.

But on the other hand I don't understand how you can portray Napoleon as a bloodthirsty monster for his conquests when the English made conquests during the same period.

[RyanEC]

Another reason is that at the time Britain was conquered non Europeans in India and Australia and some parts of Africa before the scramble for Africa.

While Napoleon was conquering European people.

[Julie4]

Yes, but that doesn't change the fact that they're still conquests lol

Napoléon Says

" People only shout at France, they only want to see its armies, as if England were not everywhere equally and far more threatening. Heligoland, Gibraltar, Tarifa, Malta, are they not English citadels that threaten the trade of all the powers, more than Danzig threatens Russia?

However, if I left Europe to its own devices, it would surrender to England. Tomorrow, she would give her Corfu and Madeira, just as she already has Cape Town. However, from the rocks of Malta, England already dominates Turkey, and consequently the Black Sea and Russia. At Gibraltar, she holds the gateway to the Mediterranean. If she could seize Corfu, she would have a foothold in Greece and control of the Gulf. This position is staggering, and yet Austria does not want to see the dangers that threaten it, any more than Russia does. France's jealousy is stronger than reason; they don't want to have any foresight. "

[Lionman95]

History is written by winners. Napoleon lost his conquests so it´s easier to portray him as the bad guy. It´s in some way similar with Nazi Germany, if Hitler won the war no one would describe him as the personified devil.
I´m not sure whether only Napoleon is seen as bad these days with all the left progressive theories colonisation in itself is more and more viewed as a crime.

[Anonymous]

It's all about things such as who won and who writes the history. But also at the time a lot of the conquests made weren't in what would have been considered the "civilised" world at the time for the British Empire.

Napoleon's conquests as part of his French Empire were a lot more in the "civilised" world. Which is partly why, and well he couldn't claim to be doing something like liberating them or trying to bring them into the modern world where as a lot of British conquests could argue that I guess if memory is right.

Also any who supported France or received support from France could be considered an enemy by the British and therefore taking them over would be a part of the war against France.

Please be aware all this is from memory and a bit of thoughts and such please correct me if I am wrong, it's been to long since I read about the time period.

[Danisa]

The same reason we dont blame White Immigrants for the Genocide of Native Americans.

History is written by the victors, whoever they may be.

[Sarah2007]

The UK weren't attacking and conquest, they were providing support to many lands for the people to live in

[Julie4]

Thanks for the laugh 😂

[Sarah2007]

You're welcome

[NamerOfStars]

::Laughs in Irish::

[DarkLegacy]

The opinion owner is right.

[DarkLegacy]

Because the UK did not do those things, they claimed unowned land and improved the lives of everyone. Napoleon was a dictator and the UK freed Europe from them. I guess you are American, who are always illegally invading countries.

[Julie4]

Haha , thanks 😂

[DarkLegacy]

You are deluded

[Starrrboy]

Because Napoleon was just a chad, they had to ruin his whole image by any means through history... they even made him ( one of the most competent figures in history ) synonyms with inferiority complex and short man syndrome..

[Mettbltt]

he wasn't a chad
get to know him better

[Starrrboy]

@Mettbltt I already did... Napoleon was the biggest chad Europe has ever seen.

[Mettbltt]

He was one of the best conquerors Europe has ever seen, but that doesn't make him Chad.
search his relationship with his wife

[Starrrboy]

@Mettbltt ohhh.. that's what you meant.. alright but I wasn't really focusing on his very personal life..

[SotiCoto]

Who is this "we" you speak of? I'm more than okay with blaming the English. Specifically the English. Not we Celts. We do no wrong. It is all the Saesneg.

[DrPepper12]

This was essentially a short answer question on the AP world history exam a decade or so ago!!

UK has caused more misery and fuckery that Napoleon is a rank amateur. GREAT QUESTION

[DarkLegacy]

You cannot spell. It is the USA not the UK.

[DrPepper12]

Both USA and UK have caused IMMENSE harm and misery. YOUR question is about the napoleonic era and as such anerica was NOT in the running... Yet

[SugarSugarplum]

Conquest is how weak, outdated civilizations are saved from imploding under their own weight.

[alice55]

Most likely cause he's French and some love to hate on French people for no reasons

[deja_vudu]

I remember a grandfather who said he didn't want people from other regions to come and live in our region, OMG!

[Dongie]

I think there are plenty that continue to bring up the past for the purpose of pointing blame. That's what some people do.

[genericname85]

because the English commonwealth imperialism is still a thing to this day xD

[MrGSpotHer]

I've never heard anyone blame Napoleon to be honest with you it's always the Brits back then and America now

[msc545]

Because only the winners are allowed to write history. If Napoleon had won at Waterloo we would have a quite different history today.

[RedInnocent69]

Not sure anyone blames Napoleon anymore.

[DarkLegacy]

Yes they do, this just Yank nonsense

[RedInnocent69]

@DarkLegacy who?

[jjj101010]

Also history is written by the winners.

[OtterMan68]

people killed

[Mettbltt]

ı agree