Napoleon was a great man who could have united Europe

@Vesniep @Cato the Elder


This is really more of a question than a statement. You guys probably know more history than I do, so what do you think?

Napoleon came very close to uniting much of Europe. Imagine if he had managed to unite the majority of Continental Europe; we would have overthrown the old, feudalist order, and replaced it with republican meritocracies.

If he had survived the nationalist uprisings in Europe, we would not have seen the "World" Wars that caused Europe to lose its place in the world.

Napoleon was a good leader, even in peace. The years as first consul, from 1799 to 1804, were extraordinarily peaceful and productive. He also created the educational system based on lycées and grandes écoles and the Sorbonne, which put France at the forefront of European educational achievement.

He consolidated the administrative system based on departments and prefects. He initiated the Council of State, which still vets the laws of France, and the Court of Audit, which oversees its public accounts. He organized the Banque de France and the Légion d’Honneur, which thrive today.

He also built or renovated much of the Parisian architecture that we still enjoy, both the practical—the quays along the Seine and four bridges over it, the sewers and reservoirs—and the proud, such as the Arc de Triomphe, the Rue de Rivoli and the Vendôme column."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleon-never-lost-waterloo-180955298/?no-ist

Napoleon was an extraordinary governor. Many of his reforms are what the rest of Europe based their institutions on, only much later.

If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited greatly. The conservative Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush republican movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; encouragement of the sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.

[video="youtube;xJ6pzLTZr1g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ6pzLTZr1g[/video]

Yea well hitler tried the same then the eu did in 1992


Posted from TSR Mobile

I agree.

While there were several times in history Europe could have been united, Napoleons campaigns were probably one of the last time it could have been done so successfully.

Nationalism was still in its early years and in many ways the concept of a nation.state was still mutable. Had Napoleon and his successors held onto the conquered territory, Europeans may well have developed a distinctly European identity rather than one of the individual nations.

While there would of course be movements of independence, they would be akin to Scottish or Catalonian movements, and would likely only spring up in times of hardship. But with a strong united europe, those days would be further away.

I love conceptualising alternate history, but I wonder what would have happened as far as colonial possessions. The scramble for Africa was after Napoleon's defeat, and if France took the British isles I couldn't imagine them taking the commonwealth with it, or at least not india.

There is also the question of Russia and the USA,

A little off topic, but what do you think would have happened if the Great Schism (Catholic vs Orthodox) never occured? What if the Eastern Roman Empire never fell? It seems like history has conspired to divide Europe.

Cato is banned ... I did expect that

Napoleon came very close to uniting much of Europe. Imagine if he had managed to unite the majority of Continental Europe; we would have overthrown the old, feudalist order, and replaced it with republican meritocracies.

If he had survived the nationalist uprisings in Europe, we would not have seen the "World" Wars that caused Europe to lose its place in the world.

Napoleon was a good leader, even in peace. The years as first consul, from 1799 to 1804, were extraordinarily peaceful and productive. He also created the educational system based on lycées and grandes écoles and the Sorbonne, which put France at the forefront of European educational achievement.

He consolidated the administrative system based on departments and prefects. He initiated the Council of State, which still vets the laws of France, and the Court of Audit, which oversees its public accounts. He organized the Banque de France and the Légion d’Honneur, which thrive today.

He also built or renovated much of the Parisian architecture that we still enjoy, both the practical—the quays along the Seine and four bridges over it, the sewers and reservoirs—and the proud, such as the Arc de Triomphe, the Rue de Rivoli and the Vendôme column."
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/we-better-off-napoleon-never-lost-waterloo-180955298/?no-ist

Napoleon was an extraordinary governor. Many of his reforms are what the rest of Europe based their institutions on, only much later.

If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited greatly. The conservative Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush republican movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; encouragement of the sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world.

[video="youtube;xJ6pzLTZr1g"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ6pzLTZr1g[/video]

Damn it my reply got nuked by network error

I liked Cato's threads. Both entertaining, and with a good point hidden somewhere in the, eh, rambling.

British culture? Not sure how much good the new, Americanised British culture would be for Europe now. British humour is great, and our literature, but there are lots of things to dislike about it - work culture, drink culture, obsession with animals, loving a monarch and many other backwards ideals, taking politeness far too far, Americanised music, American celebrity culture, American obesity culture, two-party political culture. Nah.

Should rEU demonise the UK? Perhaps. I'm not sure.

I suppose there is a mood for a Fortress Europe, especially after Russia's aggression, Turkey's aggression, the flood of migrants, and now a maniac across the Atlantic. Yes, I agree that the idea that we are surrounded by enemies would help Europeans feel closer to each other.

Then again, we do have a lot of sympathiseres with Brexit, and we don't want to alienate those people (far too many of them!) by looking like the bad guys.

Perhaps if there is demonisation, it should be attacking the Americanisation of Britain; it builds upon the idea that Britain is now an American puppet, and it doesn't antagonise the British so much, so that they might some day once again be open to the idea of a union with the rEU.

Napoleon is my no 1 hero along with Cromwell, and has been since I was 10. I wish he had succeeded and conquered all of Europe and defeated Britain. If I had been alive in Britain at that time I would have defected and welcomed a French invasion.

Read Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts. It's amazing.

Welcome back.

I'm glad you said that.

Would you be in favour of a more conservative Federal Europe today ?

If yes what changes are necessary ?

Do you think Federal Europe can be a promising superpower surpassing the US ?

I would support a united Europe, but not a liberal, globalist one like the EU is today. I would prefer it to be led by a heroic leader like Napoleon or Charlemagne, and not run as a democracy.

I think we certainly would have the potential to surpass the U.S., which looks like it is now in terminal decline, a decline that is going to be hurried by the election of Trump.

Napoleon is my no 1 hero along with Cromwell, and has been since I was 10. I wish he had succeeded and conquered all of Europe and defeated Britain. If I had been alive in Britain at that time I would have defected and welcomed a French invasion.

Read Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts. It's amazing.

Why is Cromwell your hero?

A monarchist? Eww

Now, I actually generally prefer American English, even though I don't use it because I am used to British English. But it is generally spelled more sensibly, rather than being incredibly inconsistent, and often makes more sense (e.g. trailer vs caravan, apartment vs flat, movie vs film). But many things are of course completely unnacceptable, e.g. calling football ""soccer""

I wonder how much this is just because we speak English. OTOH, while Germany is generally better here, they do have a really bad start-up culture. That is certainly something we do quite well.

Haha, I'm about the opposite. Most of my music is either instrumental, or in a language I don't speak very well (or at all).

Not sure either. I think I too often assume something is Americanised if it is bad, my bad. Just can't see much difference between British, American, and other anglophonic pop these days (although certainly British music used to be very distinct); but I very rarely listen to it, so I'll take it back and reserve judgement.

Oh God, do not tell the Germans that!

But we are still many decades away from that becoming reality. Very tumultuous decades, it seems. What about the meantime?

Apparently, republicanism is still technically illegal in the UK. I really don't understand the love of the Queen. "Oh, she's just a harmless old lady, what did she ever do to deserve your hate?!". Perhaps she does bring in a net income for the UK - but the social effects of the monarchy in the UK is not worth it. Perhaps the obsession with royal babies keeps our birth rate a bit higher, but it promotes regressive conservative ideals, goes against meritocracy, gives power (which MIGHT be used, whether or not most choose not to use it) to a figure of random personality. Royals like Prince Charles promote silly things like "organic" food, and all the related nonsense such as fighting against GMOs. The monarchy diverts patriotism from loyalty to the country and its people, to loyalty to the monarch.

Is Germany better though? Recently they had a vote for German President, and during these votes the parties always choose a bunch of celebrities. I'm sure they are thoroughly ideologically checked by their parties, but it is a scary thought to have celebrities voting on such an important matter.

UKIP got millions of votes, and precisely 1 seat, and that was the one Tory MP who defected to UKIP.

In each county, there are only 2 realistic options to choose from. It is only with absolutely huge issues like Brexit that a party like UKIP rose, and with Labour having made huge idiotic suicidal blunders, that other parties now has a chance in what were previously Labour strongholds. People don't really know what they are voting for, their families have always voted for X so they will also vote X... except recently with Corbyn and Brexit.

No, but I rather liked your previous money guy. A Cambridge mathmo graduate iirc. Perhaps I am a little biased though

What is Greek humour like?

Yea well hitler tried the same then the eu did in 1992


Posted from TSR Mobile