France still bitter about Waterloo

[Thanas]

Except when I look at the civilian casualty count, it does not look as if France inflicted disproportional civilian casualties on its enemies.

What are your sources on that? And marauding does not necessarily result in deaths. The soldiers were allowed to plunder, not to murder.

And please, Haiti is your counterexample?

Yeah, as it shows that the high liberal ideas of Napoleon were worth nothing when he wanted the resources.

How about reinstalling the Inquisition in Spain and restoring the ridiculous Bourbon monarchy in France proper with persecution of republicans and atheists? How about subjecting Europe to absolutism and religious terror?

A) Napoleon was an absolutist who crushed any dissent against his rule in far more bloodier terms. Look at the conduct of himself and his troops in Spain. He also had political opponents killed and even murdered people who had not even plotted against him.
B) As bad as the Bourbons or the Inquisition was, I'd have to be convinced that the death toll from their actions was higher than that of the wars caused by Napoleon invading Europe to consider them worse than Napoleon. You don't get to claim the moral high ground if you leave the ground covered in Blood.

Perhaps Napoleon was not quite the greatest reformer of his age, but sure as hell he was more of a reformer than the bastards who did what I described above.

He also caused far more suffering, death and destruction than any of the bastards above. His invasion of Spain alone wrecked the country completely that even fifty years later they had not recovered from it and can therefore be blamed for all the wars that resulted from that disintegration as well.

Harrowing details can be found in plenty of places that were plundered and ravaged by the British, that much I can tell even without books.

Go ahead, pull them up regarding conduct of the British during the Napoleonic Wars. Or you can remember what I think of the British Empire and then maybe consider that I am right when I am telling you that Napoleon's devastation was far outside the norm, even for his age.

[Flagg]

That's ridiculous that there are € printed featuring WWI and WWII at all, IMO. Currency doesn't need to remind the people who have to use it about that shit, it's for everyone.

As much as I despise the traitor states, I would be pretty outraged if the U.S. Mint printed a portrayal of Gettysburg, The USS Monitor's victory over the stolen and renamed USS Merrimack, or Lee's surrender at Appomattox. It goes against what a Democratic Republican Federation stands for, and while the EU isn't that at all, you're at least supposed to be friends. And frankly, pulling out your dick with all of your victories tattooed on it and waving it around (which is the equivalent of printing conflicts between member nations on currency, as far as I'm concerned), isn't conducive to friendship.

It's not exactly the same; Belgium wasn't part of the coalition that defeated Napoleon. In fact, it only exists since 1830 as independent state and was in 1815 part of France. So they don't celebrate their victory, they celebrate their owning the place where it happened.

No, it's not exactly the same, or TBH, even relatively the same. One is commemorating victory in wars between (at the time) empires and kingdoms who were mortal enemies but are now supposed to be united in friendship and for the common economic good of the other members. The other is a rebellion that was very bloody and took 4 years to put down, and then the states that took part were eventually reincorporated into the nation they betrayed.

I'm truly shocked to learn that there has been and apparently continues to be € currency that would depict or commemorate wars fought between member nations that, whoever was right or wrong, resulted in millions of soldiers and citizens dying horrible and in most cases pointless deaths.

I mean the closest we come is having Ulysses S. Grant (the portrait on the currency is from his time as an awful and corrupt as hell President, not as a Drunken General ) on the $50.

Oh well, that's the last I'll say on the matter since I'm not adding anything but detail and that's about all the detail I have left. Enjoy fighting!

[KroLazuxy_87]

That's ridiculous that there are € printed featuring WWI and WWII at all, IMO. Currency doesn't need to remind the people who have to use it about that shit, it's for everyone.

As much as I despise the traitor states, I would be pretty outraged if the U.S. Mint printed a portrayal of Gettysburg, The USS Monitor's victory over the stolen and renamed USS Merrimack, or Lee's surrender at Appomattox. It goes against what a Democratic Republican Federation stands for, and while the EU isn't that at all, you're at least supposed to be friends. And frankly, pulling out your dick with all of your victories tattooed on it and waving it around (which is the equivalent of printing conflicts between member nations on currency, as far as I'm concerned), isn't conducive to friendship.

The U.S. prints commemorative currency all the time. Gettysburg? Here's the 2011 quarter with the 72nd Pennsylvania Infantry Monument pictured. Civil War era gunboat? Here ya go. Although not produced by the U.S. Mint, there was also an 1863 "Our Little Monitor" Civil War Token.

Currency has been used to remember history and educate the public for a long time. I think it's a good thing. After all, "Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Here's the list of coins authorized by Congress since 1982:

-2009
2009 Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Silver Dollar Program
2009 Louis Braille Bicentennial Silver Dollar Program

-2008
2008 Bald Eagle Commemorative Coin Program

-2007
2007 Little Rock Central High School Desegregation Silver Dollar Program
2007 Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Program

-2006
2006 San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Program
2006 Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin Program

-2005
Chief Justice John Marshall Silver Dollar
Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Silver Dollar

-2004
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Silver Dollar
Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin

-2003
First Flight Centennial Commemorative Coins

-2002
West Point Bicentennial Commemorative Coin
Olympic Winter Games Commemorative Coins

-2001
American Buffalo Commemorative Coins
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center Commemorative Coins

-2000
Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coins
Library of Congress Commemorative Coins

-1999
Yellowstone National Park Silver Dollar
George Washington Gold $5
The Dolley Madison Commemorative Silver Dollar

-1998
Black Revolutionary War Patriots Dollar
Robert F. Kennedy Dollar

-1997
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Dollar
Jackie Robinson Commemorative Coins
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Gold $5
Botanic Garden Dollar

-1996
Smithsonian 150th Anniversary Dollar
Smithsonian 150th Anniversary Gold $5
National Community Service Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Cauldron) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (Flag Bearer) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (High Jump) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Rowing) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Paralympics) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Tennis) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Soccer) Half Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Swimming) Half Dollar

-1995
Centennial Olympics (Stadium) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (Torch Runner) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (Cycling) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Track & Field) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Paralympics) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Gymnastics) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Baseball) Half Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Basketball) Half Dollar
Civil War Battlefield Gold $5
Civil War Battlefield Dollar
Civil War Battlefield Half Dollar
Special Olympics World Games Dollar

-1994
U.S. Capitol Bicentennial Dollar
Women in the Armed Forces Dollar
American Prisoners of War Dollar
Vietnam War Memorial/Washington, DC 10th Anniversary Dollar
Thomas Jefferson 250th Anniversary Dollar
World Cup Tournament Gold $5
World Cup Tournament Dollar
World Cup Tournament Half Dollar

-1993
(1991-1995) World War II 50th Anniversary Gold $5
(1991-1995) World War II 50th Anniversary Dollar
(1991-1995) World War II 50th Anniversary Half Dollar
Bill of Rights Gold $5
Bill of Rights Dollar
Bill of Rights Half Dollar

-1992
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Gold $5
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Dollar
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Half Dollar
White House 200th Anniversary Dollar
Olympics (France and Spain) Gold $5
Olympics (France and Spain)Dollar
Olympics (France and Spain) Half Dollar

-1991
USO (United Service Organizations) Dollar
Korean War Memorial Dollar
Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary Gold $5
Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary Dollar
Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary Half Dollar

-1990
Eisenhower Centennial Dollar

-1989
Congress Bicentennial Gold $5
Congress Bicentennial Dollar
Congress Bicentennial Half Dollar

-1988
Olympics (Seoul) Gold $5
1988 Olympics (Seoul) Dollar

-1987
Constitution Bicentennial Gold $5
Constitution Bicentennial Dollar

-1986
Statue of Liberty Gold $5
Statue of Liberty Dollar
Statue of Liberty Half Dollar

-1984
1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) Gold Eagle/Runners
1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) Dollar/Coliseum

-1983
1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) Dollar/DiscusThrower

-1982
George Washington 250th Anniversary Half Dollar

[Flagg]

That's ridiculous that there are € printed featuring WWI and WWII at all, IMO. Currency doesn't need to remind the people who have to use it about that shit, it's for everyone.

As much as I despise the traitor states, I would be pretty outraged if the U.S. Mint printed a portrayal of Gettysburg, The USS Monitor's victory over the stolen and renamed USS Merrimack, or Lee's surrender at Appomattox. It goes against what a Democratic Republican Federation stands for, and while the EU isn't that at all, you're at least supposed to be friends. And frankly, pulling out your dick with all of your victories tattooed on it and waving it around (which is the equivalent of printing conflicts between member nations on currency, as far as I'm concerned), isn't conducive to friendship.

The U.S. prints commemorative currency all the time. Gettysburg? Here's the 2011 quarter with the 72nd Pennsylvania Infantry Monument pictured. Civil War era gunboat? Here ya go. Although not produced by the U.S. Mint, there was also an 1863 "Our Little Monitor" Civil War Token.

Currency has been used to remember history and educate the public for a long time. I think it's a good thing. After all, "Those who fail to remember history are doomed to repeat it."

Here's the list of coins authorized by Congress since 1982:

-2009
2009 Abraham Lincoln Commemorative Silver Dollar Program
2009 Louis Braille Bicentennial Silver Dollar Program

-2008
2008 Bald Eagle Commemorative Coin Program

-2007
2007 Little Rock Central High School Desegregation Silver Dollar Program
2007 Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Program

-2006
2006 San Francisco Old Mint Commemorative Coin Program
2006 Benjamin Franklin Commemorative Coin Program

-2005
Chief Justice John Marshall Silver Dollar
Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Silver Dollar

-2004
Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Silver Dollar
Thomas Alva Edison Commemorative Coin

-2003
First Flight Centennial Commemorative Coins

-2002
West Point Bicentennial Commemorative Coin
Olympic Winter Games Commemorative Coins

-2001
American Buffalo Commemorative Coins
U.S. Capitol Visitor Center Commemorative Coins

-2000
Leif Ericson Millennium Commemorative Coins
Library of Congress Commemorative Coins

-1999
Yellowstone National Park Silver Dollar
George Washington Gold $5
The Dolley Madison Commemorative Silver Dollar

-1998
Black Revolutionary War Patriots Dollar
Robert F. Kennedy Dollar

-1997
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Dollar
Jackie Robinson Commemorative Coins
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Gold $5
Botanic Garden Dollar

-1996
Smithsonian 150th Anniversary Dollar
Smithsonian 150th Anniversary Gold $5
National Community Service Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Cauldron) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (Flag Bearer) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (High Jump) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Rowing) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Paralympics) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Tennis) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Soccer) Half Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Swimming) Half Dollar

-1995
Centennial Olympics (Stadium) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (Torch Runner) Gold $5
Centennial Olympics (Cycling) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Track & Field) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Paralympics) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Gymnastics) Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Baseball) Half Dollar
Centennial Olympics (Basketball) Half Dollar
Civil War Battlefield Gold $5
Civil War Battlefield Dollar
Civil War Battlefield Half Dollar
Special Olympics World Games Dollar

-1994
U.S. Capitol Bicentennial Dollar
Women in the Armed Forces Dollar
American Prisoners of War Dollar
Vietnam War Memorial/Washington, DC 10th Anniversary Dollar
Thomas Jefferson 250th Anniversary Dollar
World Cup Tournament Gold $5
World Cup Tournament Dollar
World Cup Tournament Half Dollar

-1993
(1991-1995) World War II 50th Anniversary Gold $5
(1991-1995) World War II 50th Anniversary Dollar
(1991-1995) World War II 50th Anniversary Half Dollar
Bill of Rights Gold $5
Bill of Rights Dollar
Bill of Rights Half Dollar

-1992
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Gold $5
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Dollar
Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Half Dollar
White House 200th Anniversary Dollar
Olympics (France and Spain) Gold $5
Olympics (France and Spain)Dollar
Olympics (France and Spain) Half Dollar

-1991
USO (United Service Organizations) Dollar
Korean War Memorial Dollar
Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary Gold $5
Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary Dollar
Mount Rushmore Golden Anniversary Half Dollar

-1990
Eisenhower Centennial Dollar

-1989
Congress Bicentennial Gold $5
Congress Bicentennial Dollar
Congress Bicentennial Half Dollar

-1988
Olympics (Seoul) Gold $5
1988 Olympics (Seoul) Dollar

-1987
Constitution Bicentennial Gold $5
Constitution Bicentennial Dollar

-1986
Statue of Liberty Gold $5
Statue of Liberty Dollar
Statue of Liberty Half Dollar

-1984
1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) Gold Eagle/Runners
1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) Dollar/Coliseum

-1983
1984 Olympics (Los Angeles) Dollar/DiscusThrower

-1982
George Washington 250th Anniversary Half Dollar

Huh. Guess it's just my personal taste and sense of morality that finds commemorating events that resulted in a huge number of deaths and other horrid shit shouldn't be put on currency for simple reasons of not being a cock.

[Tsyroc]

I mean the closest we come is having Ulysses S. Grant (the portrait on the currency is from his time as an awful and corrupt as hell President, not as a Drunken General ) on the $50.

Andrew Jackson on the $20 is a bit of a "fuck you" to Native Americans. IMO neither Grant nor Jackson should be on our currency.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean the closest we come is having Ulysses S. Grant (the portrait on the currency is from his time as an awful and corrupt as hell President, not as a Drunken General ) on the $50.

Andrew Jackson on the $20 is a bit of a "fuck you" to Native Americans. IMO neither Grant nor Jackson should be on our currency.

I figure Grant's as deserving as anyone else, given his major role in crushing the Confederate slaver traitors who tried to destroy the Union. Yes, he had his flaws for sure, but he's no more detestable than Washington and Jefferson (both slave owners and both on currency).

Edit: Fuck Andrew Jackson, however.

[Flagg]

I mean the closest we come is having Ulysses S. Grant (the portrait on the currency is from his time as an awful and corrupt as hell President, not as a Drunken General ) on the $50.

Andrew Jackson on the $20 is a bit of a "fuck you" to Native Americans. IMO neither Grant nor Jackson should be on our currency.

Dude, they are pretty much all a bit of a "fuck you" to Native Americans and a number are to blacks as well. Except Andrew Jackson. Andrew Jackson being on any American currency is a disgrace since this is the massive cuntfaced asshole who, as a result of completly ignoring a SCOTUS decision which directly led to the massive forced emigration of American Indians from the Southeastern United States to the Midwest on foot known as the "Trail of Tears" where thousands upon thousands of natives died.
I don't necessarily agree about Grant, but I wouldn't mind Ike on the $50 and FDR on the $20.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

They should have a note for Sherman, really....

[Balrog]

Huh. Guess it's just my personal taste and sense of morality that finds commemorating events that resulted in a huge number of deaths and other horrid shit shouldn't be put on currency for simple reasons of not being a cock.

It's often the events that resulted in huge numbers of deaths which are the ones that precisely should be commemorated, for the deaths themselves and/or for the cause in which they died (stopping a horrible dictator like Napoleon from taking over Europe again or defeating the slave-holding South). In addition many national heroes achieved that status due entirely to their successful fight against another nation, often in a matter of independence or liberation from tyrannical occupation by the other nation. Normally an individual fighting for things like liberty and freedom ought to be celebrated, but because it might hurt the feels of other people we shouldn't? Putting it on currency is no different than building a permanent statue in a prominent place or holding a massive celebration one day every year with fireworks and fatty foods and all the banks closed.

[K. A. Pital]

What are your sources on that? And marauding does not necessarily result in deaths. The soldiers were allowed to plunder, not to murder.

I had a look at the generally accepted military+civilian 1,8 to 2 million figure for France and allies, and it does seem that it is close to the truth.

Yeah, as it shows that the high liberal ideas of Napoleon were worth nothing when he wanted the resources.

Napoleon spread the revolution's achievements in Europe, which was industrializing and therefore of far greater importance for the course of world history than tiny undeveloped colonies like Haiti.

A) Napoleon was an absolutist who crushed any dissent against his rule in far more bloodier terms. Look at the conduct of himself and his troops in Spain. He also had political opponents killed and even murdered people who had not even plotted against him.

As if the British conduct in Spain was better? For example the sack of San Sebastian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... _Sebastian

B) As bad as the Bourbons or the Inquisition was, I'd have to be convinced that the death toll from their actions was higher than that of the wars caused by Napoleon invading Europe to consider them worse than Napoleon. You don't get to claim the moral high ground if you leave the ground covered in Blood.

Once again - the anti-Napoleon forces had spilled the same amount of blood in their war, which also included crushing everyone allied with Napoleon, and that included some Eastern Europeans who willingly supported France.

He also caused far more suffering, death and destruction than any of the bastards above.

And how would that be, if the casualty count is almost equal?

His invasion of Spain alone wrecked the country completely that even fifty years later they had not recovered from it and can therefore be blamed for all the wars that resulted from that disintegration as well.

Yeah, let's blame Napoleon and not the reactionary idiots, the Carlists, for Spain's subsequent wars. Let's not actually remember that the crazy people who came to power after Napoleon was ousted wanted to throw the country back to religious barbarism. That sure feels good. You do realize that after the war, reactionary France and reactionary elements in Spain were actually allied? And that them actually trying to undo all the social progress was the cause of further wars and violence?

Go ahead, pull them up regarding conduct of the British during the Napoleonic Wars.

I already did. The sack of San Sebastian was not the only example of such brutality, either.

for the deaths themselves and/or for the cause in which they died (stopping a horrible dictator like Napoleon from taking over Europe again or defeating the slave-holding South).

You realize that Napoleon fought two massive huge slave Empires to the West and East: Britain and Russia?

[Channel72]

I don't necessarily agree about Grant, but I wouldn't mind Ike on the $50 and FDR on the $20.

Yeah, Roosevelt and Eisenhower are definitely among the better presidents. Although, really, it's impossible to enshrine some historical President or leader without seemingly glossing over some atrocity or civil-rights violation. The phrase "nobody's perfect" is not nearly adequate enough of a platitude to convey this problem : it should be more like "nobody's even close to some vague semblance of moral perfection in any possible way...", considering that Roosevelt rounded up thousands of Japanese, German and Italian Americans and sent them to 1940s Guantanamo Bay (although at least they weren't systematically tortured for intel, as far as we know). Anyway, if this board was around in the 40s, we'd all be criticizing FDR the same way we criticize Obama today over torture and secret prisons. Still, in retrospect FDR is pretty awesome for greatly expanding social services and welfare programs.

But really, the only way to have guilt-free, blood-free icons on our currency is to avoid printing the likeness of humans. Maybe we should just print symbols that convey ideals, like the Statue of Liberty, or whatever. But I also like how the Russians sometimes enshrine their scientific accomplishments on their currency, such as having Yuri Gagarin on the Rouble. (Although I have no idea how widely circulated that particular coin was.)

Whatever, none of this will matter once we finally switch over to a cashless economy.

[Channel72]

As if the British conduct in Spain was better? For example the sack of San Sebastian:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_ ... _Sebastian

I have zero interest in defending the British here, but that's not a good example. That was sort of just a drunken mob that got way out of control, not some kind of official military strategy on the part of the Brits. The Wikipedia article even mentions how the actual British officers tried to stop it, but couldn't.

[Thanas]

I had a look at the generally accepted military+civilian 1,8 to 2 million figure for France and allies, and it does seem that it is close to the truth.

Again, not relevant without a breakdown.

Napoleon spread the revolution's achievements in Europe, which was industrializing and therefore of far greater importance for the course of world history than tiny undeveloped colonies like Haiti.

Ah, so Haiti doesn't matter because the end justifies the means. Well, no. Napoleon treated dissent everywhere the same - something to be crushed, rights be damned.

Once again - the anti-Napoleon forces had spilled the same amount of blood in their war, which also included crushing everyone allied with Napoleon, and that included some Eastern Europeans who willingly supported France.

Ah, so the anti-Napoleon forces are now supposed to be blamed for the destruction caused when they were defending themselves against Napoleon's aggression.

And how would that be, if the casualty count is almost equal?

Because you are using a max French civilian deaths estimate against a bodycount that only counts military deaths.

If you really want to count civilian deaths, use the high estimate of ~6-8 million civilian deaths overall. So, 7-1 civilian death ratio.

Yeah, let's blame Napoleon and not the reactionary idiots, the Carlists, for Spain's subsequent wars. Let's not actually remember that the crazy people who came to power after Napoleon was ousted wanted to throw the country back to religious barbarism. That sure feels good. You do realize that after the war, reactionary France and reactionary elements in Spain were actually allied? And that them actually trying to undo all the social progress was the cause of further wars and violence?

Yeah, but without Napoleon wrecking Spain there never would have been those wars either, nor the colonial wars. Just compare the Spanish fleet before and after.

I already did. The sack of San Sebastian was not the only example of such brutality, either.

How many others?

[K. A. Pital]

Napoleon sought lasting peace in Europe many times: Britain instead kept stirring trouble everywhere. The First French Empire was, if one considers its legal system with abolition of feudal rule, allowed divorce et cetera, still much better than any of the competitors. And it is no longer defence - in the war of the Sixth Coalition, the anti-Napoleon forces sought complete destruction of Napoleon's Empire weakened by the blunder of invading Russia, but not out of any good intentions - they wanted to strengthen their own Empires at the expense of Napoleonic Europe.

I do not see a reason to accept your ridiculous estimate of 6 million civilian casualties of the Napoleonic wars which lies far outside the top boundary (I have seen some try to defend an overall civilian casualty count of five million, with most common estimates falling between 1 and 3 million civilian casualties).

I do not see a reason to think that the demise of absolutist conservative Spain is something to be lamented. Reactionary bastards deserve to rot in fucking hell. No rights for women, persecution of gays and liberal thinkers, anti-blasphemy laws are good enough grounds to hate these nations and everything they stood for. Not to mention that Britain at the time stood for more than killing and jailing gays, it also stood for slavery and slave trade, and Russia stood for serfdom which was only marginally better.

You may want to rethink your view of the benevolent British slavers who suddenly became men of honor in this war. San Sebastian was not an isolated incident. Badajoz, which the British took, witnessed the massacre of several thousand civilians by the British "noble gentlemen" and rape of civilians regardless of age.

As for plundering Europe by the allies, you would have to completely go to Orwell-level nonsense, if you say that the behaviour of Cossack troops invading the First French Empire was meant to defend Russia from Napoleon or that the Prussian troops commited no large-scale atrocities against the French. Cossacks were notorious looters and, at times, rapists. The facts were such that French propaganda has had a very easy time because Russian and Prussian troops behaved a lot worse in France and Central Europe than even Wellington (the latter had the experience of Spain behind him and knew it was important to keep his troops under control). POWs have been killed and tortured by advancing Cossacks, which was conveniently forgotten by you and now it is only Napoleon's troops who have commited such offenses when in reality every Army was guilty of them, to a greater or lesser extent, but no Army has followed a policy of conscious genocide, so it is completely ridiculous to think the French Empire was somehow worse than the coalitions assembled against it.

I am not sure how well-informed you are, but plunder and robbery were ther order of the day for allied armies of the Sixth Coalition just as much as they were for the French, especially in the East. Sometimes explicit permission to loot was given for a certain number of days. If no explicit orders were given, it was usually mutual ignorance (Russians ignored the Austrians looting, the Austrians in turn ignored Cossack looting when asked about it by local administrations in Central Europe and eastern France).

What is also true is that Napoleon was not a revolutionary - but it was so because Britain and the others hated revolutionary France even more than they hated Napoleon, so in a peculiar way, their support of reactionary cause in France has led to the the attempts to reconcile the old and new in French law. But even with all the watering-down, Napoleon's code, even considering it did nothing for the colonial freedom and black people, promised the destruction of serfdom in the proper French Empire. That was a huge step forward.

Meanwhile, your statement about the swift advances of the French Army due to looting likewise applies to the coalition troops in the Low Countries and France. Looting was the way they supported themselves so far away: Britain was the only combatant that could not rely on looting to support its armies' advance. Swedes, Austrians and Prussians relied on it, extorting not only livestock, but clothes, money and other things necessary to move the troops and station them when occupying territory.

[Thanas]

Napoleon sought lasting peace in Europe many times:

If he sought lasting peace, he went about it in mighty funny ways, like installing puppet regimes everywhere, making every effort to humiliate defeated enemies and oftentimes placing his stupid family on the throne, thus making sure everybody would hate him.

If he truly wanted lasting peace, he would have gone the way the Congress of Vienna went.

Britain instead kept stirring trouble everywhere. The First French Empire was, if one considers its legal system with abolition of feudal rule, allowed divorce et cetera, still much better than any of the competitors. And it is no longer defence - in the war of the Sixth Coalition, the anti-Napoleon forces sought complete destruction of Napoleon's Empire weakened by the blunder of invading Russia, but not out of any good intentions - they wanted to strengthen their own Empires at the expense of Napoleonic Europe.

Because everybody knew that if they did not beat Napoleon, he would be back. As evidenced by the following history. That is still defence.

I do not see a reason to accept your ridiculous estimate of 6 million civilian casualties of the Napoleonic wars which lies far outside the top boundary (I have seen some try to defend an overall civilian casualty count of five million, with most common estimates falling between 1 and 3 million civilian casualties).

Ah yes, you will accept every high estimate about the casualties France suffered but not about the devestation caused by the French. That surely is very honest.

Meanwhile, how about you look at actual research on the benevolent Napoleon, like this French source on how he treated those who surrendered at Jaffa, where Napoleon ordered the mass execution of those surrendered:

The soldiers had been carefully instructed not to waste ammunition, and they were cruel enough to stab them with their bayonets. Among the victims, we found many children who, in the act of death,had clung to their fathers. This example will teach our enemies that they cannot count on French good faith, and sooner or later, the blood of these 3000 victims will be upon us.

And also, in Jaffa:

the sack of Jaffa led to a ‘traffic of young women’ being exchanged for other objects looted in the town. The men, however,soon began to fight over them, so that Napoleon ordered his men to bring all the women back to town to the hospital courtyard ‘on pain of a severe punishment’, where they were promptly executed by a company of chasseurs.

Napoleon's correspondence also show orders to wipe out full villages, the same is true of the fighting in Italy (where in one famous case, a town was set aflame, those surviving were then bayonetted and hanged). He personally presided over the sacking of cities, and widespread murder. Prisoners were regularly hanged even after they had surrendered.
Read this.

Napoleon was no better.

I do not see a reason to think that the demise of absolutist conservative Spain is something to be lamented. Reactionary bastards deserve to rot in fucking hell.

Even if you are a reactionary bastard you do not deserve to have your country invaded with all that follows.

[Zaune]

In summary, nobody really comes out of that period in history looking very good to modern sensibilities, and arguing about who had the moral high-ground is therefore entirely pointless.

[Thanas]

In summary, nobody really comes out of that period in history looking very good to modern sensibilities, and arguing about who had the moral high-ground is therefore entirely pointless.

If there is a tie in atrocities between the invader and the invaded, the balance surely must go to those who were defending their homes.

[K. A. Pital]

I am sure the Confederation of the Rhine, Poland and the Baltic states hated Napoleon for making them puppets. Or... Actually not. What you are saying is completely false. Napoleon was not "hated by everyone" during the course of the First French Empire's expansion, far from it: about the only place that truly hated the French was Spain, and that was understandable. The other French client states were quite often real allies, no less real than Britain's clients.

Nobody "knew" shit: the British support of the Frankfurt (not Vienna!) proposals was simply diplomatic error. They wanted to get rid of the most serious competitor in ages whom they faced in the French Empire, a new pan-European empire that could in fact destroy the British Empire, and it is a huge pity and a historically awkward fact that Britain won and survived.

Like I said, the casualties inflicted by France on its opponents were equal, more or less, to the casualties they inflicted on France. No serious scholar of the Napoleonic wars would dispute that. You can try, but so far I don't see even a point in that.

I know about the sack of Jaffa. That is why I said the other parties did very much the same thing. Prisoners were executed routinely during the Russian advance into Central Europe, and Badajoz is no less an atrocity than Jaffa.

This is why I did not say Napoleon was less prone to atrocity than members of the Coalitions, but that - other things equal - his law represented a huge advancement, and in fact the abolition of serfdom by many of its opponents was also a consequence of Napoleon's actions. Prussia's humiliating defeat at the hands of Napoleon led it to implement such reforms.

If you are a reactionary country, the demise of your Empire is good. That much is certain. The demise of the Spanish Empire was good, and the demise of the Spanish Inquisition an absolute good. No nation that kept a regime of religious terror, intolerance, ethnic persecution (I am sure you know how the Russian Empire treated the Jews, eh?) is worth surviving.

Like your sig says, the nation is not a rock. It is what it stands for. There is nothing to lament about the demise of the Spanish Colonial Empire. The only thing that is kinda lamentable, is that the outcome of the Napoleonic wars did not lead to the utter demise of the British and Russian Empires.

Because even the watered-down law of Napoleon stood above the pre-Revolution laws and national customs, and in fact had the French Empire not been so vast, Napoleon's reforms would be easier to roll back. But in the Rhine, and even in Poland, his actions started an irreversible process towards the modern order.

I also fail to see how Britain, Austria or Russia were better than Napoleon, because they have, and continued in the course of the XIX century, invaded other countries when they wanted to. Spain's decimated Empire that you lament for reasons I cannot understand, was for a while even Britain's competitor, and its actions in the New World constituted one of the worst genocides the world has ever known.

[Thanas]

I am sure the Confederation of the Rhine, Poland and the Baltic states hated Napoleon for making them puppets. Or... Actually not. What you are saying is completely false. Napoleon was not "hated by everyone" during the course of the First French Empire's expansion, far from it: about the only place that truly hated the French was Spain, and that was understandable. The other French client states were quite often real allies, no less real than Britain's clients.

Yeah, the Rheinbund was real popular. Your support for that being....?

And no, I don't see how Prussia and Austria were ever real allies, no more than the other states pressed into the continental system.

Nobody "knew" shit: the British support of the Frankfurt (not Vienna!) proposals was simply diplomatic error. They wanted to get rid of the most serious competitor in ages whom they faced in the French Empire, a new pan-European empire that could in fact destroy the British Empire, and it is a huge pity and a historically awkward fact that Britain won and survived.

Bullshit. The Congress of Vienna created a lasting peace, longer than most peace treaties of that era. It also treated France very humanely. That is how - as everybody realized - you got peace. Not what Napoleon did. The contribution he exacted alone from the conquered nations were enough to cause misery and suffering. I don't see this.

Like I said, the casualties inflicted by France on its opponents were equal, more or less, to the casualties they inflicted on France. No serious scholar of the Napoleonic wars would dispute that. You can try, but so far I don't see even a point in that.

It follows the simple logic that half a year of occupation in France would be very much unlikely to kill as many civilians as 15 years of occupation of other countries. In fact, I would have to see evidence to even believe that. And I can't see a serious scholar supporting the claim that half a year of occupation in France killed as many civilians as the French wars of aggression did.

I know about the sack of Jaffa. That is why I said the other parties did very much the same thing. Prisoners were executed routinely during the Russian advance into Central Europe, and Badajoz is no less an atrocity than Jaffa.

Really? Wellington ordered civilian women to be shot at mass? That's a new one.

This is why I did not say Napoleon was less prone to atrocity than members of the Coalitions, but that - other things equal - his law represented a huge advancement, and in fact the abolition of serfdom by many of its opponents was also a consequence of Napoleon's actions. Prussia's humiliating defeat at the hands of Napoleon led it to implement such reforms.

But other things are not equal.

Like your sig says, the nation is not a rock. It is what it stands for. There is nothing to lament about the demise of the Spanish Colonial Empire. The only thing that is kinda lamentable, is that the outcome of the Napoleonic wars did not lead to the utter demise of the British and Russian Empires.

The demise of the Spanish colonial empire is certainly lamentable in some cases, in other it is not. Point being is that you cannot just go "more advanced laws, therefore it was okay to invade others". No.

I also fail to see how Britain, Austria or Russia were better than Napoleon, because they have, and continued in the course of the XIX century, invaded other countries when they wanted to.

Napoleon would have done the same. All you got for Napoleon going is "He had some fancy laws". Well, shit, that sure justifies the wars he started and perpetrated. No. The mass casualties - even when caused by the allies - can be squarely led at the feat of the ones who attacked. FFS, I don't see what is controversial about this.

[K. A. Pital]

Prussia and Austria were not real allies? Were they puppets then? Whose puppets? British puppets, I guess. And yes, had you read your own link till the end, which you obviously have not (I have read this work long before starting this discussion), namely section V starting p. 401, you would note that the author himself notes the French were not exceptional in their violence and other combatants were quite possibly just as cruel. Wellington's troops were involved in two of the most notorious incidents of mass rape and murder commited by the British - his better conduct during the latter part of the Napoleonic wars is hardly even important, considering he did not even care to admit his troops were guilty in sacking and raping the towns that they stormed. It does not follow that the long-lasting French occupation of Central Europe produced the type of civilian casualties you are talking about, because in places othe than Spain there was no civil war with the French - and Netherlands, Belgium and many vassal states actually did not suffer mass civilian casualties until the Coalition invaded Central Europe and France. The greatest toll for civilians of the anti-Napoleon Coalition countries was in Spain and Russia, and the latter coincided with the counterinvasion of Central Europe by the coalition. Surely you would understand that instead of painting Napoleon's occupation as that of Hitler, where occupied nations were subject to endless and specifically directed genocide. Where there was no resistance, the civilian casualties of Napoleon's rule were not present. I am not sure how Napoleon is always at fault for all the casualties, by the way: the Coalition declared war on him many times, not vice versa. As for your claim that Napoleon would have done the same - he had, in fact, done the same. And he has done a great service to the world by ending serfdom in many lands, and ending colonial Spain for good.

Laws are important. If a country stands for crazy backwardness and religious terror, anyone who crushes this regime is in my view doing the world a service. You can surely understand that. Whoever ends the IS regime in Iraq, if he were to create a state that could be more progressive in its place, is welcome to intervene, actually, it is just that the US has a piss poor record in such matters. Napoleon's record, at least for Central and Eastern Europe, was far better and some of the vassal states he created managed to keep the progressive laws intact after the French defeat.

[cmdrjones]

In summary, nobody really comes out of that period in history looking very good to modern sensibilities, and arguing about who had the moral high-ground is therefore entirely pointless.

If there is a tie in atrocities between the invader and the invaded, the balance surely must go to those who were defending their homes.

Hmmm then The Romulan Republic's comments about the "Confederate Slaver Traitors" may be a touch out of line?

I would like to echo Cassius Clay and Edward Coles, (Not to mention Longstreet) in noting that without slavery, much of the wind would have gone out of the Norths sails over the war of secession.

[Channel72]

Laws are important. If a country stands for crazy backwardness and religious terror, anyone who crushes this regime is in my view doing the world a service. You can surely understand that. Whoever ends the IS regime in Iraq, if he were to create a state that could be more progressive in its place, is welcome to intervene, actually, it is just that the US has a piss poor record in such matters. Napoleon's record, at least for Central and Eastern Europe, was far better and some of the vassal states he created managed to keep the progressive laws intact after the French defeat.

I'm surprised you say this, honestly. I mean, are you saying that you'd be all for the US to invade Saudi Arabia, depose the monarchy and install a democracy with better laws? I mean, that's more or less what the US did in Iraq - except we just did it really, really, really incompetently. So, I can therefore extrapolate that the reason you oppose US "nation-building" in the Mideast (which I assume you do, via interacting with you previously) is not based on the principle of national sovereignty being important or anything, but rather simply because, in practice, the US totally sucks at nation-building. So, if the US was more competent at nation-building, would you be supportive of an initiative to forefully topple Riyadh and install a democracy that includes women's rights, etc. there? Or perhaps you oppose US nation building because the Mideast, in particular, unlike Napoleonic Europe, is currently too unstable to reliably sculpt, in which case - again, you don't oppose invasion/nation-building because of national sovereignty, just implementation problems. I'm honestly curious now.

[Steve]

In summary, nobody really comes out of that period in history looking very good to modern sensibilities, and arguing about who had the moral high-ground is therefore entirely pointless.

If there is a tie in atrocities between the invader and the invaded, the balance surely must go to those who were defending their homes.

Hmmm then The Romulan Republic's comments about the "Confederate Slaver Traitors" may be a touch out of line?

I would like to echo Cassius Clay and Edward Coles, (Not to mention Longstreet) in noting that without slavery, much of the wind would have gone out of the Norths sails over the war of secession.

Without slavery there would have been no secession, since the entire social and political system of the South was wrapped up in slavery and its effects upon the South's culture and economy, and it was the resulting factors that ignited the sectional controversy that led to the Southern secessions of 1861. So that argument is disingenuous to say the least.

And frankly, you still would have seen support for sustaining the Union over issues like control of the Mississippi. The river's opening to the sea being outside of the Union would have been unacceptable to, well, pretty much every state with navigable rivers that were part of the Mississippi River System, and especially the Midwest.

But this digresses from the point of this thread.

[K. A. Pital]

This does digress from the thread's point, but it does raise the question of whether "they were defending their homes!" is a good excuse. After all, the North only had different laws, and that's it. It was just a legal difference.

[Steve]

I would say that premise is a factor to consider in the determination, but not of such weight it can decide the matter on its own. While it is understandable that people will fight to defend their homes no matter what system they're under, that doesn't mean the attacker doesn't have the superior moral justification. As was seen in the American Civil War, among other conflicts.