Matrix Games Forums

In reply to Ursa Major's statement, "The death of Napoleon should also mean automatic loss for the French player"

Interesting thought. I think that the Napoleonic wars were the outgrowth of the Revolution which rocked France in the late 18th century. And that the wars from 1792 onwards were the result of a people having deposed their King and claimed rule for themselves (although some would say this happened in England under Charles the I, in 1650, I believe...though could hardly argue to the same extent).

I KNOW it is too late, and just too bizarre for most seasoned EIA players who might view the wars between France and the rest of Europe as war for war's sake, but what are the thoughts out there on this:

I once wrote optional rules for the board game in which liberty and the principles of the French revolution were championed by an extra player, whose job it was to spread this through Europe by making deals with other players and having at his disposal the ability to incite riots and discord, but he could also SUPPORT governments which supported his cause (always a victory point loss for the monarchies, depending on the extent of the concessions made, and it was risking being a slippery slope which could plunge his lands into revolution themselves). This was done by increasing their manpower and income, as a result of revolutionary zeal. The French were already benefitting from this. But no monarch could ever benefit from a "liberated people" the way France had. After all, the French HAD succeeded. They were their "own kings." And it argueably had a significant impact on the morale of their armies.

Probably in a computer game, the "idea" of liberty would be best represented as a non-player. It would spread on its own. Monarchs would have to deal with it on their own.

In effect, with my rules, the French player was on the side of Liberty, but did not control it. When the French player's armies showed up or conquered a provence, it would become "infected" with this crazy notion, and the monarchs would have to deal with potential uprsisings or unrest, or deal with economic problems. Europe was at war with this idea of liberty and equality (and the idea that a common man could rule an Empire, supposedly in the NAME of the people!). It was the movement's job to overthrow as many monarchies as possible, and gain footholds in as many nations as possible. The player representing this movement, represented in effect, its more radicalized intellectual element. Historically, unfortunately even Napoleon coopted the movement for his own gain--and diluted it (I believe).

So would France lose the war if Napoleon died? I believe the Napoleonic wars were merely a phase of the wars of Liberty (or wars against Liberty), and his loss would not NECESSARILY mean an end to the cause of Liberty--to the cause of the French people! Historically, his loss DID mean an end to the revolution and a return of the Monarchy (to Europe's delight), but it did not HAVE to end this way. Adding another force to the game, "Liberty", or "Liberte" as it were, is an impossibility. But I believe it would make the game much more interesting.

I would be happy to get any input on this from any French readers who are well versed in their revolutionary history.

It wasn't just the loss of Napoleon.  France's armies had been defeated, it's veterans were dead, and it had lost it's empire.
 
If Napoleon had been killed, say, before the disastrous foray into Russia, the odds of the French Empire having lasted longer might actually be higher, because whatever General had climbed to the top of the dogpile for control would not have been as adventurous/reckless as Napoleon had been.
 
Napoleon was a megalomaniac that couldn't stop conquering, or ever be satisfied.  A less ambitious but competent leader might have consolidated French gains instead of growing the ramshackle Empire beyond the limits that it could be effectively governed and defended from attack. 

Joisey,

Very good. And I believe true.

By the time of Waterloo, it was a done deal. However, if the wars had unfolded differently, and Napoleon had not attacked Russia, say, then it might have been possible for him to consolidate. And "live to fight another day." Say, 1816.

But you are right.

Chris

Napoleon's personality was such that it fueled his victories, but caused his defeats.
 
He had no finish line in sight, and would never be satisfied until every European power was subjugated below him.
 
Thus, a conservative and competent General could never have achieved what Napoleon eventually did, and the argument is moot.
 
Napoleon's ambition was the root of both his success and failure.

ktoywf,

Wow!

Now THAT was well said.

I loved that.

-Chris

I am only quoting myself from an another forum by saying IMHO, no general or to precise marshall would have overcome the others. A big France including say french speaking Belgium and Switzerland would have had remained, while the rest of the occupied countries (Germany, Italy etc.) would have had a french marshall as their king. ?uch like Sweden. These dynasíties would have been swept away by the nationalism of 1870's.

But this is a BIG what if in history which we all know is forbidden.

Nationalism in the late 19th century is a tricky force to pin down and understand, because it did not have the same effect in every country:
 
In the German and Italian principalities, nationalism was a unifying force that brought about unified nation-states.  But it does not explain why the Austro-Hungarian Empire remained strong and stable during the same period, nor why Scottish, Welsh, and Irish nationalism did not pull the British Isles apart.
 
What was it that caused the Bavarians to join a new German state but not the Austrians?  Was it mere geographic isolation that kept the Swiss apart from the new nation states forming around it?  Why did the nations of Scandanavia not unify in the same way as the Germans and Italians?  Why did the disparate peoples ruled by the Czars seem immune to the new wave of nationalism, only to have it emerge in the late 20th century?

There are a good many of us who do not buy into the idea that Napoleon was a meglomaniac who was trying to conquer Europe. It just doesn't stand up to scrutiny, In my opinion.

The Napoleonic Wars were an extension of the Revolutionary Wars and those Wars were not about France invading their enemies so much as the Monarchies of Europe looking to suppress any ideas of revolution spreading throughout Europe.

Napoleon being elected Emperor was an even greater threat to the idea of the Divine Right of Kings and inherent value of Noble blood. Now certainly the causes of the individual wars were more complicated than this but because up the upstart Corsican and the Revolution, the European Powers could not tolerate dealing with France as anything but a rogue nation.

1805 - Austria, Russian and Britain go to War on France.
1806, 1807 Prussia, Britain and Russia go to war on France.

Spain? Not a war that Napoleon ever wanted. Sure he was engaged in dastardly scheming to get French control of Spain but he achieved that without bloodshed... at first. He then found himself having to put down an insurrection.

Portugal was forced on him by British intervention.

There was one war that France was the aggressor in (combined with Austrian, Prussia, Italy, Poland, and the Confederation of the Rhine that some might call a 'coalition of the willing') and that was Russia. Even then it was again not a war that he wanted, but a war that was forced upon him by the Russians ..and the British.

The Napoleonic Wars (and the Revolutionary Wars) was really the never ending war between Britain and France and all the smaller wars within that were instigated by Britain and France scheming against one another. Had Napoleon died prematurely there may have been enough energetic and decisive people in France to maintain the spirit of the Revolution and Empire and that would have resulted in the continuation of war between France and Europe.

Ironically, it was the Wars against the Revolution and Napoleon that lit the flame of nationalism throughout Europe that would spell the end of totalitarian monarchies.

I completely and utterly disagree with malcolm_mccallum. Its true that most of the wars were forced upon him by other powers, but they were fought in the interests of these countries NOT to be dominated by Napoleon.

Calling Napoleon a meglomaniac conqueror DOES STAND UP TO SCRUTINY. Its not a MORAL JUDGEMENT CALL. Napoleon was UNDOUBTEDLY the most talented General for thousands of years. But, his grand strategy needed work.

If he had created lighter peaces after several victories in his various wars, he could have avoided the endless neverending conflicts. His harsh peaces guaranteed continual wars.

Arguing that other countries shouldn't have started wars against him lacks insight into how diplomacy and power balance politics works. Basically what you are saying is the other countries should have rolled over and allowed him to do what he wanted.

I, personally, don't buy either the idea that Napoleon cared about Liberal ideas (the spread of these ideas was a byproduct of his conquests however) or that he was a poor victim constantly under attack. He was a conquerer, and he saw himself in that role. Other pretenses were just that, and its strange that SOOOO many historians seem to have bought into his faux-Liberal posturing.

His will to dominate and inability to establish a relationship with another country that didn't resemble a Liege-Vassal relationship caused his downfall. The violent response by other countries was the INEVITABLE result of that.

I agree with ktotwf,
in support of his arguments an example.
Even in 1814, before Leipzig, the Allies (still) beeing terrified offered peace, with France getting her 1805 borders. But it was out of the question for Napoleon, even if it was the wise thing to do, if only to get a respite for some years. This as an example of his inability to cooperate.

I think the truth about Napoleon lay somewhere in the middle.

If the wars of 1792 to the rise of Napoleon as Emperor were the result of a monarchistic fear of a renegade France, and since Napoleon experienced this in the army, then I find it easy to see why he might have been interested in ATTEMPTING the subjugation of the European powers which made life so complicated.

He might have done it in the only way he knew how (which, with hindsight, was a failure).

MalcomMccallum stated, "Ironically, it was the Wars against the Revolution and Napoleon that lit the flame of nationalism throughout Europe that would spell the end of totalitarian monarchies." I agree with this, and still wish there were rules for the spread of "the Revolution", its support, and opposition. Without these, the wars are really just war for the sake of war and alliance building for the sake of alliance building. There is no historical meat to it (still not a bad game). Was it ALL about this? No. Obviously France and England had been at war for centuries (THANK GOD THAT IS OVER), and there were still other forces at play. But "the Revolution" and fear of a renegade France spreading its crazy notions around Europe was definitely one of them.

-Chris

P.S. Norden, I believe the famed battle of Leipzig was 1813. Unless you are referring to some other event in Leipzig. No worries. Slip ups occur. But it makes me confused on this treaty offer with a return to 1805 boundaries you are referring to.

Hey guys:
 
I appreciate the insights! You guys seem to know your Napoloen well. I've read a lot on the time in the past few years and one thing I've noticed:
 
Napoleon is viewed differently by everybody. To some he was simply a great strategist, awesome leader, brilliant politician. To others he was a meglomaniac and/or tyrant. He wasn't easy to peg as the typical tyrant until towards the end when he exhibited what some might call "a loss of reality". His beliefs that France could not survive without him or that he could still win even with the Cossacks bearing down on Paris were typical of a tyrant and his lost cause.
 
I don't think he reaches to the likes of Hitler or Stalin (I never liked the Hitler / Stalin comparisons since those guys butchered people and took it to a much lower level) but maybe closer to an Alexander. The type of guy where his eyes were bigger than his stomach. . These guys are what I call glory seekers but since glory is fleating then you must keep on conquering. Y'all know the type...
 
Anyway, sorry for the rambling but was intrigued by the thread and the posts...
 
Thank you

I do think that people are two quick to lump Napoleon in with Hitler just as we daily hear Saddam Hussaein, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Kim Jong Il all described as being Hitler-like. The worst atrocity that the Nazis ever did was to allow the world to view the world (and history) in good vs evil terms.

The Napoleonic Wars were not so clear. Was Napoleon a Totalitarian despot? Well, he was inarguably the most liberal, reform minded, and good-governing head-of-state in Europe at the time. If you try painting Napoleon with the evil brush you must first thoroughly coat Francis, Alexander, and the others.

Napoleon was, as we all are, terribly complicated and yes, his chief fault was hubris. I do believe that he really cared for France and its people and identified himself wholly with it which is part of the problem because he demanded as much from France as he demanded of himself which was, certainly, too much.

It was 1813, sorry. Long time, I read those books. Placing "die Drei-Kaiserschlacht" or "Völkerschlacht" wrongly, tsts, whats next?

I wouldn't dream of comparing Napoleon with Hitler. Everyone doing so should open a book. IMO Napoleon changed to something like a megalomaniac in his later years, but looking at his accomplishments, only Alexander the Great would be in his league. I read once in an old General from AH, that there were more than 250.000 titles on this man.

Ignoring comments I fiond objectionable I will say that while Napoleon was undoubtedly a tyrant (he employed Fouche after all!), he was a rather enlightened one.  However, I don't really agree with this:
 

He wasn't easy to peg as the typical tyrant until towards the end when he exhibited what some might call "a loss of reality". His beliefs that France could not survive without him or that he could still win even with the Cossacks bearing down on Paris were typical of a tyrant and his lost cause.

It's not clear that in 1814 he had really miscalculated, or indeed that his cause was lost.  The coalition was very rickety in 1814, and as already mentioned he was offered a peace with the 1805 boundaries.  The 1814 campaign demonstrated that he could beat allied armies when given the opportunity, and with effective diplomacy I think he could easily have obtained a peace that left him as head of state.  But rather than cash in his chips he decided to increase the stakes and that is why the 1814 campaign ended as it did.  The decision was basically the same as the decision to invade Russia - rather than accept a small loss in his power he gambled eevrything.  Heck Spain is in much the same boat. 
 
I don't really understand these decisions.  I know that it's argued that he felt that if he was preceived to have failed in any small sense his legitimacy would be questioned and he'd be overthrown by a military coup.  But history shows it didn't work out that way.  It is true that on the grand strategic level he was an inveterate gambler, and had he not been he would never have become emperor.  But he was capable of taking his winnings off the table, as Amiens shows. 
 
Ultimately I don't think he would have survived that much longer even if he had obtained the 1805 boundaries in 1814.  I don't think he had the temperment to play a role in balance of power diplomacy the way that say Napoleon III did.

Puhleaze!  Napoleon III was an ineffectual dolt.  The man dwelled on diplomacy because he had not an ounce of military talent.
 
I agree that Hitler and Stalin are in their own category, while Napoleon and Alexander are in another.  It's not lust for power or the desire to conquer that seperates the two categories, but that the 20th century tyrants embraced genocide as state policy while the former did not.

hi to all!

First I'm sorry for my english, as it's not my first langage. I hope there will be no misunderstoods.

Napoleon was a great and ambitious leader, but his conquests are more motivated by the international situation at the beginning of the XIXth century than his personnal ambition. First thing to remind is it takes place when all the european countries have declared war against France not because of Napoleon, but revolution. The first Napoleon's campains, in Italy and in Egypt, are turned against Austria and England, wich are at war since 1789. After these victories Napoleon have took the power, but it was the only acceptable solution to remede to the directory corruption. To be emperor, he has increased the power of the burgheses (???) class, so he has made the first steps to make France a modern state.
In 1802, the peace treaty between France and England satisfies nor one neither the other, and if France is not very strict about the treaty's application, it was England which has found a pretext to declare war and form the third coalition. The campain of austria is surely a defensive one, made to prevent the junction between Russian and Austrian armies. The same for the campain of germany, as prussia was prepared to war for months. the confederation of the rhine is created, and all the small states of this confederation receives the "code civil" as a good thing, as it has given power to burghese in each of these states and increase commerce and in consequence wellfare. the only doubt we can have is that he has created Wesphalia and gave it to his brother. It's certainly a mistake but a common one, as it was usual with european's monarchies. So it was a poor solution (very poor as his brother was a fool in terms of economy ), but the only one he has found to counterbalance with the other royal families' influence.
In 1807, after Tilsit peace, Napoleon have one problem. He knows that the beginning of war was provocated by the rilvality of France and England, and that he can't invade this country. So he decides a blocus against this country. This blocus will have had (???) consequences, as there's no sufficiant structures to reach his application. This will cause awfull laws for countries which are under french influence, and the beginning of a centralisation around the state of France ( this was not really the case before, but for Batavia and Northern Italy ). I'm not sure Napoleon has the choice at this point: he knows that let England in peace means that this country will help the others economically to forms other coalitions, and he knows that the new system he has institued will be a source of frustration and finally that it will create other coalitions. The only choice is to make a strictly defensive politic or to try to crush England, and struggle its economy; but the first way as the second one means war.
To increase the blocus, Napoleon needs to have access to Portugal, which is under England influence. This access is Spain ( there's no other way ). Everyone has to remind that on the throne of Spain is a king of the Bourbon family, since the war of succession in 1700. This means Napoleon, who's the symbol of Bourbon's destitution in France, can't wait for Spain's help. So he has exploited the instability to rapt the royal family and install another brother. As I've said for the first one, I'm not sure that it was the most effective solution ( in fact I'm sure it was not ), but a traditional one. Napoleon hasn't seen precisely that as he has changed the system for the blocus, France was not seen anymore as a country which help burgheses to obtain, trough the "code civil", prosperity, but as one which takes wellfare for itself. He has not correctly evaluated that there will be more instability in Spain after the "code civil" and he couldn't know that Joseph, his brother, was totally inapt as a politician as well as a military commander.
1812 is again a problem of blocus, but not only that. This is clear that Russia was not under french influence and so that the blocus is not made in this country, but it ruines Napoleon's efforts in europe. Napoleon knew that Alexandre Ist is a conservator in Russia, and as a conservator is against Napoleon as well as a part of the russian court. He knew that the Bourbon's family ( the future louis XVIII and Charles X ) are installed in Russia. On the other hand he was strongly influenced by the polonian's nobles, through Marie... something ( I just can't remember the name ). We know that Talleyrand was against this declaration of war, and surely for the end of the blocus. Well, this is the only Napoleon's war which have reasons, but was not forced and is discuted with entire books. At this point, Napoleon has not seen that he could stop the blocus and search a term of compromise, and it's clear that at this point he beguns to fear to lose his power...
In conclusion, I would say that Napoleon was not as Hitler or Stalin, or other modern totalitarism, but not more as Alexander. Alexander has thought with greek conceptions, he has dreamed that if there is one master for the entire world, there will be no more war. Napoleon has tried to fight royal families, as royal families have tried to fight a new state's organisation, in which the balance of power is completely changed. Perhaps Napoleon has dreamed to make France, which have lost most of its colonies in 1750, and in consequence his family, a power equal to the new colonial England ( and certainly he has not succeeded ).

Of course Napoleon III had no military talent.  I bring him up because he understood, diplomatically what limits France had to accept on her ambitions in order to avoid conflict with Britain.  His diplomacy was reasonably good, and he was a good politician. 
 
My point was that if there had been a compromise peace in 1814 with France at her 'natural frontiers'', I cannot imagine Napoleon acting diplomatically in the way that his nephew did.  He was never going to accept France limiting her ambitions to those that Britain could put up with.  And given that temperment it was clear that Napoleon was always going to be in conflict with Britain, and a peace in 1814 wouldn't have been so different from the peace of Amiens.