History Nerd Thread

Bump.

Much talk of the three-generation authoritarianism thesis. The Great Man theory. In light of the erosion of confidence in Western democracy over the past decade, and, incidentally, this election and forthcoming elections in Europe, seem to demonstrate a yearning for a 'Great Man,' who may not necessarily offer little more than a cult of personality, to solve all our problems. As such, I thought it pertinent to revive the thread.

So, in historical terms, I would enjoy seeing people's thoughts on whether Napoleon was a warmongering tyrant or actually a force of progress and liberty in the world.

Whereas Hitler and Stalin offer a stark and dark study in murderous barbarism, historians have been debating Napoleon's true nature and impact since the Coup of 18 Brumaire.

Now I have my own opinions on the matter, and have studied the era in such wonkish detail (woods for the trees), that I would like other perspectives as I try to divine the future.

@The Human Q-Tip
@gourimoko
@Tornicade
@BimboColesHair
@Randolphkeys
@jking948
@Man Called X
@GreasySpread36
@col63onel
@Bill Walton.

King Stannis said:

Bump.

Much talk of the three-geeration authoritarianism thread. The Great Man theory. In light of the erosion of confidence in Western democracy over the peat few years I thought it pertinent to revive the thread.

So, in historical terms, I would enjoy seeing people's thoughts on whether Napoleon was a warmongering tyrant or actually a force of progress and liberty in the world.

Whereas Hitler and Stalin offer a stark and dark study in murderous barbarism, historians have been debating Napoleon's true nature and impact since the Coup of 18 Brumaire.

Now I have my own opinions on the matter, and have studied the era in such monkish detail (woods for the trees), that I would like other perspectives as I try to divine the future.

@The Human Q-Tip
@gourimoko
@Tornicade
@BimboColesHair
@Randolphkeys
@jking948
@Man Called X
@GreasySpread36
@col63onel
@Bill Walton.

Click to expand...

These are dangerous waters for any of the rest of us given your expertise, but can't the answer be "he was both?"

Perhaps pre-1800 Napoleon was genuinely interested in spreading progress and liberty, but at some point, i think it just became all about him.

18 Brumaire was necessary at some level because the Directory was falling apart and unable to protect France. I'm not convinced it had to be Nappy himself taking over, but i'll give him a pass.

And i think he also gets credit for tryong to maintain the peace between the Second and Third Coalitions. the wars started back up in '03 because of the Brits.

But around 09 or so, i think he kind of started to lose it. It became solely just about him, and he refused some reasonable offers of peace.

The Human Q-Tip said:

These are dangerous waters for any of the rest of us given your expertise, but can't the answer be "he was both?"

Perhaps pre-1800 Napoleon was genuinely interested in spreading progress and liberty, but at some point, i think it just became all about him.

18 Brumaire was necessary at some level because the Directory was falling apart and unable to protect France. I'm not convinced it had to be Nappy himself taking over, but i'll give him a pass.

And i think he also gets credit for tryong to maintain the peace between the Second and Third Coalitions. the wars started back up in '03 because of the Brits.

But around 09 or so, i think he kind of started to lose it. It became solely just about him, and he refused some reasonable offers of peace.

Click to expand...

He simply struck first. Many of the same people who supported the coup, had also been pushing Bernadotte to act in the same fashion. However, depending on whom one believes, the future Karl XIV Johan either "respected the institutions of the Republic too much" to act, did't believe a coup would succeed, or Napoleon stole a march on him (which is difficult to believe as Bonaparte had been Egypt for most of the planning stage).

So either way a general would have had to take over as, like you note, the War was going badly, particularly in Italy.

Napoleon is a tough study due to the vast amount of propaganda, both positive and negative, that surrounded him. Why I think he is the most studied human to have ever lived.

I need more time than what I currently have right now to answer this, because it isn't a simple one way or the other answer...but comparing him to Hitler and Stalin, which some historians do, has always been laughable to me.

Did they share some similarities? Yes, multiple actually.

But one left massive positive effects on a global scale in his wake that still effect us today, while the other 2 left us with mostly instability and conflict.

I'll expand when I get some free time, but glad to see this thread get bumped.

The Human Q-Tip said:

These are dangerous waters for any of the rest of us given your expertise, but can't the answer be "he was both?"

Perhaps pre-1800 Napoleon was genuinely interested in spreading progress and liberty, but at some point, i think it just became all about him.

18 Brumaire was necessary at some level because the Directory was falling apart and unable to protect France. I'm not convinced it had to be Nappy himself taking over, but i'll give him a pass.

And i think he also gets credit for tryong to maintain the peace between the Second and Third Coalitions. the wars started back up in '03 because of the Brits.

But around 09 or so, i think he kind of started to lose it. It became solely just about him, and he refused some reasonable offers of peace.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the Brits are actually the real villains of the Napoleonic Wars. Whilst presuming to liberate Europe from "tyranny," they bank-rolled authoritarian regimes, manipulated other nations into attacking France (even when they knew there was little prospect of success like poor, incompetent Austria in 1809) while grabbing colonies and monopolizing trade. They allowed their allies to absorb enormous casualties while only half-heartedly and occasionally committing their ground forces to the war.

They helped defeat Napoleon's despotism only to let most of Europe fall back into an age of oppression. Bad, naughty Brits.

Yesterday the twitter account for the USS Arizona live tweeted the attack on Pearl Harbor as it happened 75 years ago. It really brought the attack into perspective. 1177 men died on the Arizona when a 1700 pound bomb set off her forward magazine. The resulting explosion destroyed the ship. Oil still leaks from her 75 years later. "Tears of the Arizona".

King Stannis said:

Perhaps the Brits are actually the real villains of the Napoleonic Wars. Whilst presuming to liberate Europe from "tyranny," they bank-rolled authoritarian regimes, manipulated other nations into attacking France (even when they knew there was little prospect of success like poor, incompetent Austria in 1809) while grabbing colonies and monopolizing trade. They allowed their allies to absorb enormous casualties while only half-heartedly and occasionally committing their ground forces to the war.

They helped defeat Napoleon's despotism only to let most of Europe fall back into an age of oppression. Bad, naughty Brits.

Click to expand...

Back in my senior year of high school, I participated in this state-level "Model U.N.", where we each represented various countries. We took the USSR, which was a blast because it was right during the invasion of Afghanistan. So of course, we were the object of much scorn, nasty resolutions, etc.. But we basically trashed all that -- the U.S. delegation was for shit -- and by the end of the second day, the event managers were nervous it would peter out. So, they asked us to see if we could spice things up.

So we played the victim card We ended up drafting a resolution demanding that the U.N. help fund our "peacekeeping" efforts in Afghanistan, and condemn the United States for encouraging illegal guerilla resistance that was costing the lives of so many innocent Soviet soldiers. I personally consider that one of the finest bits of trolling I'd ever seen.

But you, Lord Stannis, just topped that. Well-done!

Anyway, the Brits were not angels. But I think it was the French who screwed up by invading the Dutch Republic -- a republic at the time -- and declaring war on Britain during the Wars of the First Coalition. Holy Roman Empire and Austria...sure, because they were trying to suppress the Revolution. But the Dutch - a Republic themselves -- and the Brits would have been happy to have been left out of the whole damn thing. The French didn't want that.

Once the British saw that French territorial ambitions included suppression of
the Dutch Republic, they were pretty much resolved to defeat France. And Napoleon himself eliminating the later Batavian Republic and replacing it with a monarchy led by his own brother doesn't help advance the idea that he was just a bringer of liberty.

A really fun article that mentions our buddy von Lettow-Vorbeck and some other ball-busters:

5 Soldiers Who Kicked Ass In the Face of Death (and Logic)

http://www.cracked.com/article_19534_5-soldiers-who-kicked-ass-in-face-death-and-logic.html

The fact that there is not currently a destroyer named after Ernest E. Evans is a crime. The entire Battle off Samar is one of the truly great stories in all of military history. Found this little nugget, which certainly came true:

On 27 Oct 1943, he was given commission of the destroyer Johnston. "This is going to be a fighting ship", he said during the commissioning ceremony. "I intend to go in harm's way, and anyone who doesn't want to go along had better get off right now." He later added "[n]ow that I have a fighting ship, I will never retreat from an enemy force."

Seems like someone should have been able to make a damn good movie out of that....ah hell, just did a search and realized someone is actually doing it. Hope it does justice to what those sailors did.

http://deadline.com/2015/10/wwii-bi...ater-to-be-directed-by-john-moore-1201597566/

Wow...you guys really are nerds.

The Oi said:

Wow...you guys really are nerds.

Click to expand...

Heh. Seriously, if you ever get a bit of time, read about the Battle off Samar, which was part of the larger Battle of Leyte Gulf against the Japanese near the Philippines. Or just read the entry on him in that article I linked.

Essentially, Admiral Halsey got suckered, took the main U.S. battle fleet north, and left all the troop transports he was supposed to be guarding virtually unprotected against the entire Japanese main battle fleet - 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 11 destroyers. The only thing standing between the Japanese fleet and all those troop transports and supply ships was a tiny screening force of 3 destroyers, 4 (even smaller) destroyer escorts, and some small escort carriers.

The little ships attacked. One of the greatest mismatch in U.S. naval history, and they ended up saving the rest of the fleet. Could be a freaking great movie.

The Dunkirk trailer. Excited to see it:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-eMt3SrfFU

The Human Q-Tip said:

Heh. Seriously, if you ever get a bit of time, read about the Battle of Samar, which was part of the larger Battle of Leyte Gulf against the Japanese near the Philippines. Or just read the entry on him in that article I linked.

Essentially, Admiral Halsey got suckered, took the main U.S. battle fleet north, and left all the troop transports he was supposed to be guarding virtually unprotected against the entire Japanese main battle fleet - 4 battleships, 6 heavy cruisers, 2 light cruisers, and 11 destroyers. The only thing standing between the Japanese fleet and all those troop transports and supply ships was a tiny screening force of 3 destroyers, 4 (even smaller) destroyer escorts, and some small escort carriers.

The little ships attacked. One of the greatest mismatch in U.S. naval history, and they ended up saving the rest of the fleet. Could be a freaking great movie.

Click to expand...

Truely one of the heroic battles fought by American forces. Talk about bravery in thr face of overwhelming odds......Any of the Japanese cruisers or battleships should have been able to defeat them single-handedly.

King Stannis said:

The Dunkirk trailer. Excited to see it:

Click to expand...

Looks awesome. I imagine it will end with that most famous of Churchill's speeches.

That Dunkirk trailer is amazing.

Just finished Crown on Netflix, totally worth the watch for you fucking nerds.

AZ_ said:

That Dunkirk trailer is amazing.

Just finished Crown on Netflix, totally worth the watch for you fucking nerds.

Click to expand...

Prince Phillip is the man.

He is a god you know. Not THE God, but A god. Not lying.