Posted on 11/25/2004 7:29:42 AM PST by kupia_kummi
PARIS, Nov 25, 2004 (AFP) - France approaches the bicentennial of Napoleon Bonaparte's coronation next week with both embarrassment and fascination for a legend that weighs heavy, especially with its European partners. "The republic (of France) is still embarrassed by Napoleon. It owes him so much that it dares not speak about. It's too proud and too weak at the same time to do so," Steven Englund, a US historian living in France, told AFP. Indeed, events for December 2 to mark the coronation of the diminutive emperor will barely leave the confines of the museums. An exception is a religious service organised by a Napoleonic association at the Madeleine church in central Paris. Historians point to a problem Napoleon poses for today's French institutions two centuries on: he may have conquered half of Europe, centralised and strengthened France and given it the civil code and the central bank, but he also led his country and others into bloody battles that cost hundreds of thousands of lives. For Englund, modern-day France, far removed from ideas of world grandeur, remains mostly indifferent and incomprehending of this rich though contrasting period of history. After all, celebrating the Corsican who conquered half of Europe is hardly politically correct at a time when France likes to play the good European in the 25-nation bloc. "Louis XIV, Napoleon, de Gaulle -- all three display in their way French imperalism, synonym for arrogance and domination," according to historian Annie Jourdan, author of a book on myths and legends about Napoleon. In the countries he occupied, Napoleon provoked "a heightened love of the homeland, and above all a new mistrust towards France which reawakens today every time a French head of state acts without caring about European public opinion," Jourdan said.
(Excerpt) Read more at ttc.org ...
Of course they are not at ease with Napoleon. Unlike the French of today, he fought rather than surrendering at the first sign of trouble.
Napolean, Hitler, Stalin, Mao.... butchers. Remeber them only for the widespread misery they engendered.
Has prof Englund spoken to Chirac about this?
French Revolution...there's another big problem...
Yeah dude actually won few fights... Totally unfrenchmen like
"The republic (of France) is still embarrassed by Napoleon.
Of course – he was the last successful French leader.
"France likes to play the good European" what does that mean ?
“The Good European” is a threat to no one – not even their conquerors.
I guess being embarrassed or ashamed of your country is a common trait of liberals.
The French have always been uncomfortable with boldness, unless it involved lavish settings an events worthy of a sun king. They really are so full of themselves.
Well, there's a sophisticated view, reflecting extensive scholarship and a deep, subtle understanding of French history.
You disagree that Napolean caused untold misery for his ambitions?
Totally unfrenchmen like...you're right!
Corsica became French after the treaty of Versailles and 3 month later Napoleon was born in 1769. His entire family was of Italian origin. His mother died never having learned to speak french. She always despised all things french even after Napoleon had crowned himself Emperor.
Corsicans, to this day, are corsicans first and french second.
Napoleon tried to conquer Europe to impose unity on it and a monarchy which maintained an existing social order, while modernizing many institutions and laws. He belongs in a list of military leaders, or in a list of those who tried to conquer Europe in modern times (a small list that includes only Hitler and Napoleon) but not in a list of people who intentionally killed millions of civilians. The deaths he caused were of those in his military and in the militaries of those who opposed him, and they were far fewer than the deaths caused by other European monarchs in WWI.
After all, celebrating the Corsican who conquered half of Europe is hardly politically correct at a time when France likes to play the good European in the 25-nation bloc......
One can argue that Napolean and Chirac have similar goals, a united Europe. Napoleon imposed his nationalistic views of French culture all across the continent and backed up the try with force when resisted. French was the dominent language and everyone that mattered spoke the language.
As before, the Brits are the odd man out.
Chirac and others are attempting to unite Europe without the benefit of a dominent position. It is wise for us to look forward to a day when the little guys chafe under the discomfort imposed and revolt.
I'm rereading the great Tolstoy novel War and Peace with the benefit of Will Durant and the internet at hand to provide parallel insight into the depicted events.
My future view is massive discontent and revolt of the Euromen against the opression that will occur as the Euro experiment fails. The war will not be between the nationstates but between the people and the Eurogov a la 1792.
Matbe that's why I'm not a lib?
That is really a simplistic view of Napoleon, such as is found in Tolstoy's War and Peace. Through his 1807 campaign at least, Napoleon was primarily crushing the coalitions that hd been formed to stop him. Because England was the driving force (at least monetarily) behind the coalitions, Napoleon became obsessed with defeating them. This led to his ill-fated Spanish venture in which he hoped to replace a despotic and incompetant ruler with his brother (an approach that had worked well in Naples). The Spanish, however, preferred their own tyrant to an imported French one, and with British help from (primarily Wellington) fought the French tooth and nail to stop it.
The ill-fated Russian campaign intended to soundly defeat the Czar's army to protect the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and to remind the Czar of his treaty obligations with the French. The indecisive Russians inadvertanly won the campaign by refusing to engage with Napoleon's army until he had extended his lines of communication too far.
None of the other despots, enlightend or otherwise that are compared with Napoleon had his genius. No captain-general in history fought as many campaigns and battles as well as he did. I cannot see comparing him to an oratorical demagogue like Hitler. Napoleon was easily one of the most energetic and talented people in history. If you compare his actions and motives with those of the other states/monarchies in the Europe of his time, you will find him no worse a person that any of them, though he was more successful. I really do not think he had a dream of "uniting all of Europe under France", although in many novels and movies he is always depicted in that manner. He did indeed "remake" certain small principalities in an attempt at a "buffer zone" (The Rhine Confederation), but this was largely IMO to protect his borders (which enlarged as a result of the penalties/reparations he opposed on the coalitions he crushed).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.