Do you think the other European powers were as imperialist as Napoleon's France?

[Julie4]

[Anonymous]

Most European countries. Russia, Germany, France, Holland, Belgium, Austria, Turkey, Spain Portugal and the most powerful Britain.

European powers like Britain were able to subjugate backwards countries like India very easily with very little British soldiers. In India the British east India company hired a bunch of indians to fight their wars and the muslim mughals who controlled India were defeated. If the British hadn't come to India bringing modern technology then India would be a giant version of India and Pakistan. India hasn't developed since Britain left in 1948, if anything its gone backwards with its leaders and wealthy elites who were fundamental in the British ruling India now running things. We gave them trains and tried to teach them to use toilets but they'd rather crap in the street.

We do have reminders of some precious jewels we bought off the indians but despite taking money they now say they want them back. Very ungrateful people. A large amount of indians are descended from the British because indian women loved British men for their uniforms, masculinity and bigger trousers snakes.

[emeraldsaphire]

All European powers were during the 19th century, at least to some extent. They had to be. Conquer or be conquered. Different countries did it differently though. The French were some of the most aggressive. Not only during Napoleon, but before and after as-well. The British on the other hand were only interested in imperialism in so far as it facilitated trade. So they were very careful of where they expanded too.

[Julie4]

If I understand correctly, for the English it was a good imperialism?

[emeraldsaphire]

Oh, I wouldn't say that, but it was different. The British were by no means peace loving hippies. However the British empire worked tirelessly to end slavery legally around the world. Sure slavery still exists today, but it's illegal in every country and that's largely because of British imperialism. Let's not try to label historical events as good or bad. Let's understand that the past is nuanced and lets try to learn from our ancestors to make the world better today.

[Julie4]

You seemed to be saying that English imperialism was pretty good and the French were bad imperialism lol

If we want to be fair, many civilizations have practiced imperialism.

[emeraldsaphire]

lol well I'm not the biggest fan of the French during the 19th century. From the Jacobins to the shenanigans that lead to the July Revolution. The french were very aggressive, taking huge risks. The British were also aggressive for sure, but they didn't almost start a world war XD

[Julie4]

Neither did the French, in fact it is funny to note that the English had greatly expanded their own imperial domain during the Napoleonic period and it was they who finally triggered the war after the peace of Amiens. Despite the various compensations Napoleon was prepared to make.

Napoleon was no angel, but it's totally false to believe that he was more imperialist than other states.

[emeraldsaphire]

The British empire got so big the sun never set on it XD. They got big for sure, but in very strategic ways. I don't see the logic in Napoleon invading Russia for example. Napoleon was still probably one of Frances better leaders. I don't want to hate on Napoleon (too much XD) he was way better then Villele or Charles X. Both the Brits and the french were imperialistic, but they did their imperialism in different ways. For example the British were much more of a Navel power well the French were more of a land power. The British chose to push for trade in their expansion and this paid them back in spades. This is why they were so successful during this period. Prior to the 19th Century the French were the dominant power in Europe. French was the language of trade and diplomacy. France was still a huge power, but it was the stupid decisions of many of their leaders that would allow the British to take the lead and then later the Americans. Their is a reason we are both conversing in English instead of french XD

[Julie4]

The invasion of Russia was justified by the fact that the Russians had not respected the Treaty of Tilsit and were going to invade Poland.

There were some bad decisions on the part of French leaders, but France was also hampered by its geographical situation, where we had to defend ourselves on land and sea.

For the rest I speak English but my English is pretty mediocre even though I've improved but my French ego often refuses to speak this language 😂

[emeraldsaphire]

I understand the position Napoleon was under. It was a bad spot for sure, but a land war in Russia has never been a good idea. Unless you are the moguls I guess XD

Your English is great! I know Napoleon was and still is very popular. And I'm no expert on the Napoleonic wars, but you gave me an opportunity to google some stuff

[Julie4]

Thanks for my English haha , The problem is that Napoleon should have been content to be on the Russian border. But if you notice, the Russians had an excellent strategy, which was to push Napoleon deeper and deeper into Russia and let the cold do the work lol

Once again, Napoleon should have stuck to the 1803 borders and strengthened our position. The problem is that Napoleon was afflicted by hybris.

When he was still lucid, this geopolitical statement was absolutely clear-sighted. I share this with you.

Did you know about these statements and Napoleon's geopolitical "forecasts" for Russia, the USA and the UK, and what do you think? ↗

[RavVid]

Sometimes thought that Napoleon would have been better advised going for Saint Petersburg than Moscow. If he cut Russia off from the Baltic there would have been no nasty trading with Britain. To be sure Britain would have responded but resupply would still have to have been more plausible.

My armchair named Geopol is screaming "Go St P Napoleon, go St P". Any thoughts?

[Julie4]

@RavVid

Napoleon wanted the Tsar to return and respect the agreements signed at Tilsit, but the Tsar refused to negotiate and Napoleon wanted to go all the way to Moscow.

But in reality, the Treaty of Tilsit was unworkable for Russia in the long term, because Russia needed English goods. And above all, many people think that the Treaty of Tilsit is a division of Europe between France and Russia. Forgive me for calling it that, but it's a load of garbage; in reality, the Treaty of Tilsit is a series of humiliations imposed by France on Russia. Consequently, Russia could not accept such a treaty for long.

[RavVid]

I grant whatif's are of no value but they are a seductive game and can perhaps illustrate how fickle history can be. The plans of both mice and men oft go awry.

Napoleon's major objective was to enforce the continental system was it not? Given we know Moscow was a dud call we are apt to wonder if Napoleon could have achieved that objective without the retreat and Leipzig.

Can't help but be fascinated on whatifs on this even though it is sheer hubris.

[Garud]

yes, Europeans (British, Dutch, Portuguese, French) came to India to trade and in return, they got high-quality material.
but they saw the chance and to light their own civilisation they darkened the sub-continent civilisation, they not only destroyed and damaged the ancient buildings and statues but also systematically destroyed the schools of Mathematics, Astronomy and Medicine.
Finally, ended up looting gold, silver precious jewels and metals, and later printed in their books that before them there was nothing in the sub-continent.

[RavVid]

I was typing undoubtedly but then paused for thought and now I am not so sure.

Imperialist is defined as extending a country's power through colonization and use of military force to do so. Ideally aristocratic war was grabbing a bit more desirable land and there was a profit motive to do so. Military force have always been expensive and wars potentially ruinous in cost.

I have no doubt all European powers were inclined towards land grabs when economic.

[Julie4]

During the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, the Russians had expanded to Georgia and with Austria had wiped out the existence of Poland, the British had increased their colonial empire. Prussia also hoped to expand despite its recent conquests, and Austria continued to hope to recapture some of the territories taken by Prussia.

It's curious that most people consider Napoleon to be an evil conqueror, when other countries were just as evil.

[Mettbltt]

Napoleon is considered a bad conqueror because his conquests were in Europe.
Other European countries are no less than it

[RavVid]

Napoleon was rather good at conquering and perhaps resented for that penchant. Napoleon forces lived off the land so ordinary people would lose their livestock and grain. That probably didn't endear.

Aside from the Anglo world how much of Europe sees Napoleon as being evil?

[Lliam]

No European power was more imperialist than Britain. Look at India, China, southern Africa, the Middle East, Afghanistan, Crimea, North America, the Pacific, the Caribbean. They were all over. Britain just hid much of its imperialism behind corporations.
And if you read the book "Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War", you will find that Britain engineered WWI. Germany had nothing to do with it.

Then there was Spain in the Americas.

[RichA322]

If you believe that Russia got so big from being the small Duchy of Moscow by peaceful means you should read some more history books. Moscow just permanently annexed it's colonies to form an Empire.

[purplepoppy]

Yes but there's a big difference between bringing civilisation to darkest Africa raising the natives out of the stone age and conquering other European countries.

[chrissykerdock]

who was more imperialistic than england who used to say the English empire shines from sun to sun

[Dargil]

Back then, yes, Now? Snowflakes who can't fight their way out of a paper bag and have forgotten how to have children. Europe is circling the drain.

[Kaneki05]

Of course. And we beat Napoleon thankfully. Our empire was better.

[DaBiggestBird]

Napoleon was a French Hero! Well he could have given women rights but decided not to which was lame but besides that, he was cool

[DJB72]

Given the British Empire was around long before and long after boney I'd say at least as imperial

[OddBeMe]

The thing is britian already conquered their colonies. So both napoleon and Hitler were just fighting against the grandfather clause

[Knightwatch27]

Sure they were. That is quite common knowledge. What is the point though?

[Julie4]

I don't know, I just have the impression that for many people, Napoleon was the monster and that the other European powers were just victims of the evil Napoleonic France.

[Andreï05197]

Probal that for this French Nationalist Napoleon was a good guy while he is similar to Hitler

[Anonymous]

Some of them.
Spanish - remember the conquistadors?
British - They had colonies on all the continents.
Germans - WW1 & WW2.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Yes. Britain, Germany/Prussia, Spain to name three.

[DrPepper12]

Have you MET the Spanish, Russians & British?

[Jennz6]

It’s possible

[Anonymous]

Not sure. What do you think?

[UnwantedScorpio]

Yah your looking at a French and German person

[jahaims]

Open a book

[noohair]

Sure...