- This topic has 8 voices and 76 replies.
-
Posts
-
Here are some points concerning the Napoleonic Legacy.1. The Aristocracy of a Merit was a Revolutionary and not Napoleonic innovation.2. The Artillery that Napoleon employed so well was developed by Gribeauval under the Bourbons, not during Napoleons reign. He was trained at the royal artillery school and was a pre-war artillery officer. He made French artillery famous; he did not invent it nor modernize it. For reference Jean-Baptiste-Vaquette-de-Gribeauval3. Conscription existed before the French revolution and Napoleon. The Revolution introduced the Levee en Masse or Nation in Arms but not conscription. I will grant that the Levee en Masse was a novel concept but Napoleon himself did not invent it.4. Operational mobility is as old as war itself. Napoleon reintroduced it to warfare he did not invent it.5. Considered as a genius in the operational art of war- I will give you that, he was an operational genius, he sure knew how to win a battle. It is too bad that strategically he was an utter failure.1. The Metric System-Introduced by the First Republic, Napoleon just kept it.2. The Napoleonic code- Yes that was him and it is still used as the basis of the legal code in France and several other European countries.3. Ended lawlessness and disorder in post-Revolutionary France (call him tyrant and usurper if you want)- Don?t know if this qualifies as part of his legacy4. Refused compromise and only accepted his enemies' surrender. That is why he was eventually defeated. He forced surrenders but did not subdue his enemies, instead he let them rebuild their strength and keep coming at him until they eventually wore him and France down.5. Offered Louisiana to a young nation struggling to survive to the Empire- Sold LA because he needed the money not out of charity. He could not keep it anyway because England controlled the seas. It is easy to sell something that you do not really control.The Napoleonic and Roman Empires can be compared on the basis of extent, military success and methods, legal system, societal organization, method of conquest, success at integrating conquered peoples, method of diplomacy, scientific achievement, and longevity and that is a short list.You claimed the Romans miserably failed against some barbarians. I pointed out that their Empire lasted 1000 years and compared it to the French Empire which lasted little more than 20 it would be just as valid to compare it to the Nazi Empire which lasted for less than 5 years. You chose to take offense. Nobody said anything about the ?effeminate? French, I just made a comparison. Then you decided that the comparison was not valid before posting again to celebrate the accomplishments of Napoleon. I have answered, 90% of what you claimed rightly belong to the original revolutionaries or the Bourbons. The vast majority of Napoleons accomplishments were negative. He cost the lives of a few million soldiers, devastated and looted Europe, destroyed the European economy through his ?continental system?, and fostered a generation of Europeans that hated and despised all things French, even the admirable parts. He twisted the revolution out of any semblance of the vision of the original revolutionary?s in a vain attempt at self-glorification. The sad part is that he was as successful as he was.Compare Napoleon to Octavian, Octavian ended the Roman civil wars and ushered in almost 100 years of peace. He reunited Rome and brought peace and stability to the empire after almost 50 years of civil war. He usurped power certainly, but he did not glorify himself, others did that. Of the two, Octavian was by far the better statesman and national leader.Oh yeah, I can give you citations for everything if you want or you can just Google it. Every single one of my refutations is common knowledge, and based on facts.
The Aristocracy of a Merit was a Revolutionary and not Napoleonic innovation.
As you said Napoleon borrowed from previous theorists such as Jacques Antoine Hippolyte, Comte de Guibert, the reforms of preceding French governments and developed much of what was already in place. But he consolidated the practice of modern conscription introduced by the Directory.
Considered as a genius in the operational art of war- I will give you that, he was an operational genius, he sure knew how to win a battle. It is too bad that strategically he was an utter failure.
Napoleon's biggest influence was in the conduct of warfare. Napoleon was regarded by the influential military theorist Carl von Clausewitz as a genius in the operational art of war and historians rank him as a great military commander, intensifying the Revolutionary phenomenon of total war.The Napoleonic Wars also had a profound military impact. Until the time of Napoleon, European states employed relatively small armies, made up of both national soldiers and mercenaries. However, military innovators in the mid-18th century began to recognize the potential of an entire nation at war: a "nation in arms". But not all the credit for the innovations of this period go to Napoleon. Lazare Carnot played a large part in the reorganization of the French army from 1793 to 1794?a time which saw previous French misfortunes reversed, with Republican armies advancing on all fronts.Napoleon himself showed innovative tendencies in his use of mobility to offset numerical disadvantages, as brilliantly demonstrated in the rout of the Austro-Russian forces in 1805 in the Battle of Austerlitz. The French Army reorganized the role of artillery, forming independent, mobile units, as opposed to the previous tradition of attaching artillery pieces in support of troops. Napoleon standardized cannonball sizes to ensure easier resupply and compatibility among his army's artillery pieces.Utter failure ??
The Metric System-Introduced by the First Republic, Napoleon just kept it
The official introduction of the metric system in September 1799 was unpopular in large sections of French society, and Napoleon's rule greatly aided adoption of the new standard across not only France but the French sphere of influence. The Napoleonic code was adopted throughout much of Europe, though only in the lands he conquered, and remained in force after Napoleon's defeat.
I pointed out that their Empire lasted 1000 years and compared it to the French Empire which lasted little more than 20 it would be just as valid to compare it to the Nazi Empire which lasted for less than 5 years.
He was compared to Hitler most famously by the historian Pieter Geyl in 1947. Geyl used his book Napoleon For and Against to advance his view that all historians are influenced by the present when writing history and thus all historical writing is transitory. In Geyl's view, there never can be a definitive account for all ages because every age has a different view of the past. About the Nazis and Napoleon , David G. Chandler, historian of Napoleonic warfare, replied that "nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter." Hitler wanted to conquer Europe (see Lebensraum), not Napoleon.Don't forget that the first attempt to crush the French Republic came in 1793 when Austria, the Kingdom of Sardinia, the Kingdom of Naples, Germany, Spain and the Kingdom of Great Britain formed the First Coalition. French measures, including lev?e en masse, military reform and total war, contributed to the defeat of the First Coalition.
The vast majority of Napoleons accomplishments were negative. He cost the lives of a few million soldiers, devastated and looted Europe, destroyed the European economy through his ?continental system?, and fostered a generation of Europeans that hated and despised all things French, even the admirable parts. He twisted the revolution out of any semblance of the vision of the original revolutionary?s in a vain attempt at self-glorification. The sad part is that he was as successful as he was.
Some argue that Napoleon's true legacy must reflect the loss of status for France and needless deaths brought by his rule: historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned?17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost." Vincent Cronin replies that such criticism relies on the flawed premise that Napoleon was responsible for the wars which bear his name, when in fact France was the victim of a series of coalitions which aimed to destroy the ideals of the Revolution (starting with First and Second Coalition wars during the French Revolution followed by the Napoleonic wars (Third to the Seventh Coalition)The Napoleonic Wars brought great changes both to Europe and the Americas. Napoleon had brought most of Western Europe under one rule?an achievement not met since the days of the Roman Empire, although Charlemagne reduced a large area of central Europe into a single empire.The map of Europe changed dramatically in the hundred years following the Napoleonic Era, based not on fiefs and aristocracy, but on the perceived basis of human culture, national origins, and national ideology.(see Nationalism)The Napoleonic wars also played a key role in the independence of the American Colonies from their European motherlands. (leading to the Hispanic American wars of independence)After his defeat, Napoleon deplored his unfinished dream to create a free and peaceful "European association" sharing the same principles, the same system of measurment, the same currency with different exchange rates and the same Civil Code. Although his defeat set back the idea by one-and-a-half centuries, it re-emerged after the end of the Second World War. (peacefully tho)
Compare Napoleon to Octavian, Octavian ended the Roman civil wars and ushered in almost 100 years of peace. He reunited Rome and brought peace and stability to the empire after almost 50 years of civil war. He usurped power certainly, but he did not glorify himself, others did that. Of the two, Octavian was by far the better statesman and national leader.
French Empire lasted 17 years...and while Octavian emerged from a Civil War context, Napoleon emerged from an "anti-revolution" European coalition war. Different contexts.Bonapartism refers to a broad centrist political movement that advocates the idea of a strong and centralized state, based on popular support. What about "Octavianism" or whatever you want to call it? TMO, similar.
How did they "loot" the Colosseum? How did Hadrian "loot" the Temple of Olympian Zeus? (I thought he built it).They kept Greek sculpture, but they also added more realism (that's why I chose those two particular sculptures)Remember, the Greeks copied the Egyptian kouros and added the element of movement to it (by placing one leg in front of the other).
What do you call realism about roman art?? What did the Romans create in Arts? not much if not ... nothing. They were good in engineering, organisation, politics but not in Art.Your "one leg in front of the other" shortcut is irrelevant: Egyptians did it already. http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=230 ask Wally http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000941.html
What do you call realism about roman art?? What did the Romans create in Arts? not much if not ... nothing. They were good in engineering, organisation, politics but not in Art.
Apparently we differ because I consider architecture works of art. Where's all the Coloseums and Parthenons and Circus Maximuses (or is it Maximi?) in other previous cultures? Are there any revolving restaurants in other cultures? I also think the Dying Gaul and The Boxer are very good examples of Roman realism.
Your "one leg in front of the other" shortcut is irrelevant: Egyptians did it already. http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=230 ask Wally http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000941.html
Excellent. I guess the fact that the Greek kouroi where free standing, yet the Egyptian ones were not, doesn't mean anything. And there is nothing in previous civilizations that matches Classical Greek sculpture. Shoulder positioning, capturing a snapshot of movement (like the Discus Thrower), slight head tilts...is there any of that in Egyptian or Oriental sculpture? No, there is not.
The dying Gaul ? A Roman copy of a lost Hellenistic sculpture that is thought to have been executed in bronze, which was commissioned some time between 230 BC and 220 BC by Attalus I of Pergamon to celebrate his victory over the Celtic Galatians in Anatolia. http://en.museicapitolini.org/ The ?Thermae boxer? ? Bronze Greek artwork of the Hellenistic era, 3rd-2nd centuries BC (the boulder is modern and replicates the ancient one). National Museum of Rome ? Palazzo Massimo alle Terme, Rome, Italy. http://www.roma2000.it/zmunaro.html#Palazzo%20Massimo The Parthenon? A temple of the Greek goddess Athena. Its construction began in 447BC and completed in 432BC on the Athenian Acropolis, Greece. It is the most important surviving building of Classical Greece, generally considered to be the culmination of the development of the Doric order.The Temple of Olympian Zeus, aka the Olympieion ? A ruined temple in the centre of the Greek capital Athens that was dedicated to Zeus, king of the Olympian gods. Construction began in the 6th century BC during the rule of the Athenian tyrants but it was not completed until the reign of the Roman Emperor Hadrian in the 2nd century AD some 650 years after the project had begun...All Greek art... :-
I concede that it's in the area of architecture that Roman art produced its greatest innovations. Roman engineers developed methods for city building on a grand scale, including the use of concrete. Massive buildings like the Pantheon and the Colosseum could never have been constructed with previous materials and methods. Though concrete had been invented a thousand years earlier in the Near East, the Romans extended its use from fortifications to their most impressive buildings and monuments, capitalizing on the material?s strength and low cost. 😉
Concrete – a Roman invention – was made from a changing recipe of lime mortar, volcanic sand, water, and small stones (“caementa,” from which the English word “cement” is derived). The mixture was placed in wooden frames and left to dry and bond with a facing of brick or stone in a procedure somewhat like the casting of statues in bronze or other metals. When the concrete was completely dry, the wooden molds were removed, leaving behind a solid mass of great strength, though rough in appearance, which was often covered afterward with stucco or even sheathed with marble revetment. I think you are confusing cement with concrete, two entirely different substances.
I think you are confusing cement with concrete, two entirely different substances.
I thought that too but wasn't sure. I believe it was the Etruscans who first used cement or a form therof.
I will have to find more sources. I actually have a book on the history of Roman Engineering if I can find it.
Concrete - a Roman invention - was made from a changing recipe of lime mortar, volcanic sand, water, and small stones ("caementa," from which the English word "cement" is derived). The mixture was placed in wooden frames and left to dry and bond with a facing of brick or stone in a procedure somewhat like the casting of statues in bronze or other metals. When the concrete was completely dry, the wooden molds were removed, leaving behind a solid mass of great strength, though rough in appearance, which was often covered afterward with stucco or even sheathed with marble revetment. I think you are confusing cement with concrete, two entirely different substances.
Concrete and cement:Concrete is a construction material composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) as well as other cementitious materialsIn the most general sense of the word, a cement is a binder, a substance which sets and hardens independently, and can bind other materials together. The word "cement" traces to the Romans, who used the term "opus caementicium" to describe masonry which resembled concrete and was made from crushed rock with burnt lime as binder. 12,000,000 BCA natural deposit of cement compounds forms due to the reactions between limestone and oil shale during spontaneous combustion near present-day Israel.5600 BCThe first concrete structures were built.3000 BCThe Egyptians began to use mud mixed with straw to bind dried bricks. They also used gypsum mortars and mortars of lime in the building of the pyramids.The Chinese used cementitious materials in the construction of the Great Wall.800 BCThe Greeks used lime mortars that were much harder than later Roman mortars. This material was also in evidence in Crete and Cyprus at this time.300 BCThe Babylonians and Assyrians used bitumen to bind stones and bricks together.299 BC to 476 ADThe Romans used pozzolana cement from Pozzuoli, Italy near Mt. Vesuvius to build many famous Roman structures including the Appian Way, the Roman Baths of Caracalla, the Basilica of Maxentius, the Coliseum and Pantheon in Rome, and the Pont du Gard aqueduct in south France. They used broken brick aggregate embedded in a mixture of lime putty with brick dust or volcanic ash by the Romans. Many structures that used stone. They built ~5,300 miles of roads.http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blconcrete.htm http://www.azom.com/details.asp?articleID=1317 http://www.groupecorbeil.com/en/concrete/
From Dictionary.com
ce⋅ment /sɪˈmɛnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [si-ment] Show IPA ?noun 1. any of various calcined mixtures of clay and limestone, usually mixed with water and sand, gravel, etc., to form concrete, that are used as a building material.
con⋅crete /ˈkɒnkrit, ˈkɒŋ-, kɒnˈkrit, kɒŋ- for 1?15, 10, 13, 14; kɒnˈkrit, kɒŋ- for 11, 12/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-kreet, kong-, kon-kreet, kong- for 1?15, 10, 13, 14; kon-kreet, kong- for 11, 12] Show IPA adjective, noun, verb, -cret⋅ed, -cret⋅ing. ?noun 6. an artificial, stonelike material used for various structural purposes, made by mixing cement and various aggregates, as sand, pebbles, gravel, or shale, with water and allowing the mixture to harden. Compare reinforced concrete. 7. any of various other artificial building or paving materials, as those containing tar. 8. a concrete idea or term; a word or notion having an actual or existent thing or instance as its referent. 9. a mass formed by coalescence or concretion of particles of matter.
I can play semantic games all day and we will still get nowhere.I have some cement somewhere around the house that I build model planes with, I also have some cement that I used to make concrete and build a wall in my backyard. Both are cements but one makes concrete and the other does not.
I get it; your basic argument is that anything good could not possibly have come from one of the cultures that are traditionally held to be an antecedent of what is considered modern Western Culture and civilization. The only thing the West has ever done is be good at war, nothing culturally or artistically enhancing has come out of the West. I think that is the basis of your narrative. Correct me if I am wrong, I am sure you will anyway. You seem to love to point out the faults in others logic but then deny any faults in your own. You must be omnipotent, and I and a few others on this board are just tyros playing at history because we do not agree with your point of view. It gets frustrating after a while, I would probably have more fun and less bruises if I just went ahead and pounded my forehead against the nearest brick wall. I will probably keep trying to engage you in debate though; I just seem to be a glutton for punishment.
