Napoleon Bonaparte: The Exception to the Rule. . .Why?

What I find most intriguing regarding Bonaparte is that he was exiled instead of executed. Understanding the precedent of the time it is apparent that exile was common for monarchs, as other monarchs did not wish to set such a precedent. What is absolutely astounding in my opinion is that royal leaders viewed Napoleon in such a light. He WAS a commoner, and easily could have been executed. This told the people that THEY could rise from poverty and obscurity to achieve the same status as a monarch. It told them that they were essentially the same as a monarch in some respects.

The reason that Napoleon was not executed is simply due to the sanctioning by the pope. Had this not occurred when Napoleon crowned himself emperor, I think he would have been executed. I like the military side of history more than the political side, but unfortunately they are too often intertwined.

a reply to: JiggyPotamus

I think he wasn't executed cause of two things:

1) We was loved by the people and the British knew that the reinstalled French monarchy would never get the respect he did. Executing Bonaparte would not only likely ignite another French uprising in a already unstable France but also ruin any chance of a French/ UK relationship which developed over the next hundred years.

2) The British dignitary's on the HMS Bellerophon struck a deal with him so he would surrender peacefully, the fear is he would have escaped and run of to the USA. If he had managed that he would likely have caused for issues.

originally posted by: 8654drp
a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry my mistake. Shrapnel is what the Englishmen used(range app. 1000 meters,canister app. 300 meters.). Which is an example of Wellington's innovative thinking.

English light infantry wore green jackets. Simple yet effective camo. When in the prone position with Baker rifles were hard to spot.

Exactly wellington was hardly only old school.

Although he did use old school methods he wasn't adverse to trying new things out.

To me he had one foot in the old school and another in the new.

a reply to: crazyewok

I'm not getting across to what I mean by old or new school. It's a method or way of thinking.

Napoleon waged war in a different manner. Clausewitz and Jomini were the most renowned proponents of this school.

Wellington waged war in a more direct manner. In the same manner as Alexander or Cesear.

It does not take away or truly affect their tactical greatness.

Just read this and I must say well done Sir ... well done indeed.

He was a man of his time with vision, be it cloudy or clear. it was his vision and he imposed it on the world as he knew it.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Napolean fought the old world order and the new world order. He will forever be accepted to valhalla. His infamous decree is the cause of his downfall make no doubt about it.

Great OP and great thread in general.

There is a tendancy to make excuses for Napoleon though.
Rather than blame the weather or the his piles or somesuch, it's important to bear in mind that perhaps his plan was flawed from the start. There would have to come a point when his army would need to face Wellington's and the fact that he ended up attacking the slope at Waterloo, on the day he did, shows that his venture was doomed from the outset.

The battle was lost before the first Prussian fired a round.
Another time, another place...It may have been different, but not on that day, not from those positions or with those tactics.

a reply to: SprocketUK

By waterloo Napoleon was so in love with his own image he blundered.

He was living in fantasy world were he couldn’t lose which led him to make mistakes left right and centre, literally.

That was one of Wellington strengths, he always remained grounded and never underestimated his enemy.

a reply to: SprocketUK
Wellington later remarked that Waterloo was a very "nice" battle.
Meaning that it was finely balanced and could have gone either way.

But he also observed (and I'm quoting from memory here), "Napoleon showed no finesse in that battle. He just came up in the old style, and we beat him off in the old style".
Actually, he probably said "Bonaparte".

a reply to: DISRAELI

Those two Nosy quotes are rather contradictory, aren't they?

Of course, anything can happen in battle, and often does.

Though Waterloo wasn't nearly so knife edged as lots think.
The artillery wasn't too effective, then Ney's cavalry charges were dashed against the squares, I think that no French cavalry charge had broken a British square up to then, I could be wrong though.

By the time that the artillery barrage started to have an effect on the square formations, there was no more cavalry to exploit it.

That left the infantry, marching on in columns, allowing only the front couple of ranks to fire, facing infantry now drawn up in line, the whole of which could fire. The effect would be rather like pitching twenty blokes with muskets against two hundred. It's only ever going to end one way, unless you have another 50 thousand up your sleeve.

I'd like to make clear that I'm not dismissing Napoleon, he was at times a fantastic commander.
Just not in this case, from the moment he crossed into Belgium he was on the wrong foot.

originally posted by: Wrabbit2000
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/img/lg536ac9f7.jpg[/atsimg]

I didn't know Napoleon looked like Q.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

I am not the only one then!


I have always thought that too!

Old thread but a good one and on a subject I have been researching extensively over the last few months. Napoleon was a very gifted administrator and his reforms helped spell the end of monarchies across Europe. Revolution alone was too scary for most peasants of the age but the rewards of a meritocratic society with justice even for poor - now that was something people desperately wanted.

Napoleon was a victim of his own ego, he believed himself the sole master of strategy while spending 20 years teaching his enemies to make war. They learned only too well, particularly Russia who took the next big step forward as a world power in response to Napoleon's military threat. Prussia too would rise as a central power in Europe over the next century to become the core of modern day Germany. Britain would seal their role as masters of the seas as their navy was built up in response to France.

The Louisiana purchase was made under Napoleon's rule, his decision to quit North America and Haiti due to the Haitian rebellion throwing out the French permanently. America's westward growth happened when it did thanks to Napoleon being broke and desperately needing money to finance his endless wars with neighbor states. How Austria managed to continue fighting twice as long as any other Allied state shows just how wealthy they were in addition to having an extensive empire to draw conscripts from.

Good thread though an oldie, still miss ya Wrabbit2000.