[QUOTE=njtt]
His wars were at root defensive (although often using offense as the best form of defense), and ultimately failed in their defense of revolution.
[/QUOTE]
Let’s see.
Napoleon’s armies invaded:
He named himself King of Italy, his brother Joseph as King of Spain, and his brother Louis as King of the Netherlands.
Yup, that sounds pretty defensive in nature, not offensive. :dubious:
Do you disagree that they began as a reaction to surrounding national monarchies initiating efforts to control this anti-monarchical threat? I’m asking out of genuine curiosity – I have no idea.
Being dead is also a drawback for priesthood. But apparently not for the papacy.
I’m not a history expert by any means, but my impression…
IIRC - Napoleon first decided to expand into Italy. Of course, others disliked this expansion, and attacked him. Once attacked, he fought back. As he conquered assorted parts of Europe, the neighbours all ganged up on him, so the natural reaction was to fight back - when he won, of course he conquered the while country that attacked him. The neighbourhood was also egged on by the desire to not allow France to expand into Italy or take the Papal States.
So it’s not the situation that he decided, like Hitler, to go after peaceful harmless neighbours. (Except maybe the attack on Russia…) Generally, it was a reaction or pre-emptive attack.
The Revolution did try to eradicate the church, and as mentioned above, replace it with a cult around reason. They also tried to change the months and the measurement system. (one of those worked). Partly, as mentioned, it was due to the privilege and wealth associated with the church. As an extension of the aristocracy, essentially, it was an easy target. Going after lowly parish priests however, wasn’t going to earn the government brownie points in the rural areas.
The winning powers didn’t execute Napoleon because by those days blood-thirsty revenge was no longer an acceptable option in international diplomacy. The French Monarchy didn’t execute him for fear that the peasants would rise up again. It’s not like the locals were pining for the good old days of “let them eat cake”. The position of the restored monarchy was tenuous, and mainly propped up by the allies tired of the decades of war (1792-1815). There was no guarantee they would jump in to rescue the new and very old king from another round of revolution, and a lot of the troops who had marched across Europe with Napoleon would probably not support his murderer. Simpler to let him rot quietly in a remote tropical prison. The British were as motivated as the French king not to have him return.
Why did Napoleon return from Elba? He thought he could win. If he hadn’t wasted his army on an attack on Russia, he’d still be Emperor of Europe. The fact that he landed with a few helpers and within months had control of France again - just shows how close to right he was. That also shows how big his national support was, should someone get the idea they should execute him.
One of the reasons Napoleon was so succesful was that he masterd logistics in a way his opponents did not. He was a genius at predicting how fast armies could move and was able to plan the movements of his armies so that he was in charge of where and when the battles took place. He could take on coalitions of nations by attacking their armies one by one instead of letting them join forces against him.
One of the reasons he failed in Russia was because the transportation infrastructure there was relatively primitive and he could not plan his logistics precisely like he could in other areas of europe.
Nappy might have had less success and even less motivation had Louis not been such a douche of a ruler. His entire legacy seemed to be one of 'lets completely turn back the clock and crush even the things about the revolution that were popular".