France still bitter about Waterloo

[Thanas]

Link

Belgium defies France as it mints €2.50 coin to mark Battle of Waterloo

Odd denomination released after Paris forces Brussels to scrap thousands of two-euro coins commemorating Napoleon’s final defeat

Belgium has begun minting €2.50 coins marking the 200th anniversary of Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo after France forced it to scrap a €2 coin with the same purpose.

Paris objected to the new Belgian coin, commemorating the French emperor’s defeat by British and Prussian forces, earlier this year, saying it would create tensions at a time when Europe’s unity is under threat.

Belgium was forced to get rid of about 180,000 €2 coins that had already been minted after Paris sent a letter saying they could cause an “unfavourable reaction in France”.

But Belgium has managed to skirt the French protests using a rule that allows eurozone countries to unilaterally issue coins if they are in an irregular denomination.

Napoleon Bonaparte was forced into exile after his grand European ambitions were crushed by the armies of the Duke of Wellington and Gebhard von Blücher at the Battle of Waterloo, which took place on what is now the outskirts of Brussels.

France had said in its initial letter to Belgium that the battle, on 18 June 1815, “has a particular resonance in the collective consciousness that goes beyond a simple military conflict”.

The Belgian finance minister, Johan Van Overtveldt, said the new coins – of which there will be 70,000 – were not being released in a deliberate bid to anger France.

“The goal is not to revive old quarrels. In a modern Europe, there are more important things to sort out,” he said on Monday.

“But there’s been no battle in recent history as important as Waterloo, or indeed one that captures the imagination in the same way.”

The €2.50 coins will be usable in Belgian shops but collectors are expected to snap many of them up. Sold in special plastic bags priced at €6, they show the Lion’s Mound monument that stands at the battlefield, as well as lines indicating the position of the troops.

Several thousand copies of a silver coin – with a face value of €10 but sold at €40 – will also be released.

Given how the french are often portrayed as idiots in especially the anglosphere, they might have some legitimate grudges. But a coin showing the monument and the lines of battle? Don't see how that one is so offensive.

[Flagg]

Seems to me that just for basic cohesion, sign of friendship, and overall togetherness you wouldn't print reminders of past conflicts in which hundreds of thousands and occasionally millions of fellow EU member's citizens died at the hands of other EU member's citizens. Like at all. In any way.

[Gandalf]

The article refers to "Napoleon's Defeat at Waterloo."

In France is it seen as a French defeat or a Napoleon one?

[Zaune]

Seems to me that just for basic cohesion, sign of friendship, and overall togetherness you wouldn't print reminders of past conflicts in which hundreds of thousands and occasionally millions of fellow EU member's citizens died at the hands of other EU member's citizens. Like at all. In any way.

That's some pretty big chunks of European history we'd have to deal with by trying not to think about them.

[Flagg]

The article refers to "Napoleon's Defeat at Waterloo."

In France is it seen as a French defeat or a Napoleon one?

Well a lot of his army was French, a lot of that army was killed by Prussians, and until very recently France and Germany were not exactly what I'd call "chill". So why have coinage and shit that even brings the subject at all? I mean some of you guys can trace your ancestry back a long fucking time. Like scary long.

[Flagg]

Seems to me that just for basic cohesion, sign of friendship, and overall togetherness you wouldn't print reminders of past conflicts in which hundreds of thousands and occasionally millions of fellow EU member's citizens died at the hands of other EU member's citizens. Like at all. In any way.

That's some pretty big chunks of European history we'd have to deal with by trying not to think about them.

I'm not talking about education or censorship, I'm talking about not making money featuring ancient battles between EU members as opposed to there being constant reminders of old animosity on official currency.

[Simon_Jester]

I can honestly see why the French would be upset about this. It's all very well to say "that's ancient history," but if France is to remain in any real sense French (and Belgium to remain Belgian, and Spain to remain Spanish, and so on) in the EU, then these nations that form this federation will have to be able to preserve their own sense of historical pride and their national heroes will need to be treated with a certain amount of dignity.

In some cases, of course, that results in conflict- i.e. Napoleon is a French national hero, with reason, but many of the other heroic figures of his era were defined by their opposition to him.

But I think it's best to avoid explicitly talking about "Napoleon's defeat," although commemorating "Waterloo" is justified. While we're at it, it might be fair to remember some of Napoleon's other battles, though.

The US has done a fairly good job of this- arguably TOO good a job of this- with its own civil war. The official historiography, the monuments and commemorative events, make a great effort to be inclusive of, and respectful to, both sides. The commemoration focuses on the war itself, not on "this is when we beat the bad guys."

Arguably the Napoleonic Wars deserve this treatment at least as much as the American Civil War does.

[Adam Reynolds]

The US has done a fairly good job of this- arguably TOO good a job of this- with its own civil war. The official historiography, the monuments and commemorative events, make a great effort to be inclusive of, and respectful to, both sides. The commemoration focuses on the war itself, not on "this is when we beat the bad guys."

Somewhat off topic, but I would say that the US has done far too good a job at this. When the South still refers to it as The War of Northern Aggression, there is a problem. Especially when Southern generals like Robert E Lee are remembered as military geniuses, despite his downright incompetence at Gettysburg. It's not hard to appear effective when fighting a defensive war as he had early on in the conflict.

[Kingmaker]

Napoleon made huge contributions to European unity, so naturally his defeat was a defeat for a united Europe and as such is an unfit subject for EU coinage.

Southern generals like Robert E Lee are remembered as military geniuses

Arguably that's because Lee was incredibly popular with most of his troops and subordinate generals, resulting in a lot of the blame for his mistakes being placed on others or on bad luck after the war. Not due to over-zealous efforts at reconciliation.

[Esquire]

Napoleon made huge contributions to European unity, so naturally his defeat was a defeat for a united Europe and as such is an unfit subject for EU coinage.

Okay, I'll bite - care to expand? Why, for example, would you say that isntead of 'Napoleon made huge contributions to French poltical and military dominance of the continent?"

[K. A. Pital]

Because, thinking about the bigger picture, Napoleon's law was - for its age - progressive and unifying (Europe joined up under secular governments anyway). The opposing forces were mostly reactionary compared to Napoleon. Let us not forget the sad story of the Spanish Inquisition.

[Joun_Lord]

Somewhat off topic, but I would say that the US has done far too good a job at this. When the South still refers to it as The War of Northern Aggression, there is a problem.

Thats not really the fault of the US trying to be more neutral to both sides, much as I have a problem with that attitude. Southern racist douches would spout their nonsense and spew shit like the much repeat "save your Confederate money bois, because the South will rise again!"

These are morons that are feed a healthy diet of stupid crap created long ago, possibly before the Civil War even ended but atleast certainly not too long after the ashes of Atlanta were still warm. Be it a positive or negative portrayal of their "heroes", they will continue to believe what they foolishly believe and will do so despite any evidence to the contrary.

They are a bit like Neo-Nazis. Neo-Nazis are unfortunately still exist in the US where public opinion of the Nazi's is at best "well their uniforms looked cool and killing them in CoD is fun" and even in Germany where as far as I know being a Neo-Nazi is more or less illegal. But they still continue to believe that Nazis were the good guys, that they were defend themselves from European and Russian aggression, the Nazi's never killed 6 million Jews and 6 million other people nobody gives a shite aboot thats just Allied lies or the Allies killed them themselves. All that despite literally mountains of evidence to the contrary.

But still I'm not a fan of the white-washing neutral attitude the US takes towards the Confeds if for nothing else then the fact I went to a middle school called Stonewall Jackson. I ain't even black, well as black as someone whos great-great-grandfather was African can be, but having a school that is predominately black (or really any school) named after a guy who fought to keep black people enslaved seemed pretty damn offensive to me.

On topic, I can see why the French might be angry about this.

I remember a few years back talking to some French people online and they seemed to have a high opinion of Napoleon, regarding him as a bit of a controversial hero though some regard him as a proto-Hitler. There are supposed to be a crapload of monuments in France to Boneaparty with plenty of new ones too and Napoleon's sarcophagus was treated reverentially. The general feelings they expressed is that Napoleon was a great leader who defended France from attacks on all sides but kinda took things too far, don't know whether thats anywhere close to the reality of Napoleon though.

Also some dislike Napoleon not because of any atrocities he committed or failings in combat or anything else like that but because they believe he wasn't actually French because he was born on some French island rather then France proper. I wonder if the French people asked for his long form birth certificate?

[Darth Tanner]

Napoleon was a great leader who defended France from attacks on all sides

Yes... he defended France all the way to Moscow, Haiti and Cairo.

Looking at the wiki page on the complete listing of issued Euro coinage there are coins depicting WW2, the Easter Uprising, the crowning of William I, D-Day, WW1 and more - all of which were permitted on the 2 euro coin so I'd say France are being pretty pissy and inconsistent with other coinage decisions intervening to prevent the Waterloo memorial being on a 2 euro piece.

[Thanas]

Because, thinking about the bigger picture, Napoleon's law was - for its age - progressive and unifying (Europe joined up under secular governments anyway). The opposing forces were mostly reactionary compared to Napoleon. Let us not forget the sad story of the Spanish Inquisition.

His law however was contrary to most of his actions, which consisted upon visiting the greatest horrors upon Europe not seen since the Thirty years war. Just read an account on French troops and how they behaved in countries they invaded. In fact, Napoleons way of waging war was completely predicated upon preying on civilians.

Looking at the wiki page on the complete listing of issued Euro coinage there are coins depicting WW2, the Easter Uprising, the crowning of William I, D-Day, WW1 and more - all of which were permitted on the 2 euro coin so I'd say France are being pretty pissy and inconsistent with other coinage decisions intervening to prevent the Waterloo memorial being on a 2 euro piece.

Indeed, if Germany can live with WWII and WWI, then France can bloody well live with Waterloo.

[Joun_Lord]

Napoleon was a great leader who defended France from attacks on all sides

Yes... he defended France all the way to Moscow, Haiti and Cairo.

Like I said, I didn't know if it was anywhere close to reality. I'm only moderately ashamed to admit I don't know jack about Napoleon beyond he had a funny hat, was considered short, and didn't know how to pack his troops winter clothes.

[K. A. Pital]

Because, thinking about the bigger picture, Napoleon's law was - for its age - progressive and unifying (Europe joined up under secular governments anyway). The opposing forces were mostly reactionary compared to Napoleon. Let us not forget the sad story of the Spanish Inquisition.

His law however was contrary to most of his actions, which consisted upon visiting the greatest horrors upon Europe not seen since the Thirty years war. Just read an account on French troops and how they behaved in countries they invaded. In fact, Napoleons way of waging war was completely predicated upon preying on civilians.

Well I am sure such paragons of civility like Russia and Britain were not visiting any horrors upon anyone, and did not prey on civilians while simultaneously peddling their archaic bullshit in every possible way, and to such an extent that Russia kept crushing European revolutionaries, like Hungary, for decades after Napoleon lost the war. Napoleon was no Hitler, and it was an imperialist conflic with no "good" or "bad" parties unless one were to buy the British propaganda about evil bad France. From a purely technical standpoint Napoleon was more progressive - even considering the misdeeds of the French troops. Russia had fucking serfdom at the time, after all.

You must understand for what these countries were fighting. It is no coincidence the opposition to Napoleon united every single backwards moron in Europe, and it is not something to be celebrated.

[Thanas]

Well I am sure such paragons of civility like Russia and Britain were not visiting any horrors upon anyone, and did not prey on civilians

Not to this extent, no. FFS, read the diary of the Jenaer Burgomaster on how a French occupation was like before spouting this. Other nations had penalty codes for marauding. In the French army, it was encouraged, in fact it was the only way the French could keep up their advance speeds with little supply train.

[Darth Tanner]

There is a great line in Yes Prime Minister about a fictitious international prize for European Unity...

Foreign Secretary: “The Napoleon Prize is a NATO award for the statesman who has made the biggest contribution to European unity.”
Sir Humphrey: “Since Napoleon. That is if you don’t count Hitler.”

You must understand for what these countries were fighting. It is no coincidence the opposition to Napoleon united every single backwards moron in Europe, and it is not something to be celebrated.

Yes because they didn't want to be ruled by a Napoleonic imperial monarchy. Good/Evil are relatively straight forward when one of the sides is expansionist to the point they want to rule all of Europe. You can easily make the argument that it would have been a 'good thing' for Napoleon to have won since he was more of a reformist atleast on paper but that's a hard sell when French bayonets are pointing at you and the French army just carried off everything of value and ate all your crops.

It also wasn't everyone vs Napoleon until the end... many states sided with him when it benefited them to do so - including Russia for atleast 3 years.

[K. A. Pital]

Well I am sure such paragons of civility like Russia and Britain were not visiting any horrors upon anyone, and did not prey on civilians

Not to this extent, no. FFS, read the diary of the Jenaer Burgomaster on how a French occupation was like before spouting this. Other nations had penalty codes for marauding. In the French army, it was encouraged, in fact it was the only way the French could keep up their advance speeds with little supply train.

Once again, Thanas: Russia had serfdom. And it crushed every single liberal revolution in Eastern Europe in the following decades. I am sure that somewhere in your world all that is unimportant, but it is not. "Penalty codes for marauding"? You would have to prove your case with numbers. I know that the Russian, British and Austrian armies plundered, and it was tolerated by commanders.

[Ralin]

Guys, I'm not Kingmaker but I'm going out on a limb and guessing that that he was joking with the "European unity" comment

[Thanas]

Well I am sure such paragons of civility like Russia and Britain were not visiting any horrors upon anyone, and did not prey on civilians

Not to this extent, no. FFS, read the diary of the Jenaer Burgomaster on how a French occupation was like before spouting this. Other nations had penalty codes for marauding. In the French army, it was encouraged, in fact it was the only way the French could keep up their advance speeds with little supply train.

Once again, Thanas: Russia had serfdom. And it crushed every single liberal revolution in Eastern Europe in the following decades. I am sure that somewhere in your world all that is unimportant, but it is not.

And Napoleon didn't mind crushing liberal revolutions either. See Toussaint L'Ouverture. Napoleon was liberal only because it suited him, once he faced resistance he was just as barbaric as the other powers, even more so considering his way of waging war. Napoleon was liberal because it provided him with an excuse to supplant previous rulers with his own family. He had no qualms of supporting autocratic regimes (Russia, Bavaria) or creating his own autocratic regimes (Rheinbund). Note that he did not turn Spain into a republic either.

Was he better than Russia's serfdom? Sure. That does not absolve him of the damage he caused or the oppression he inflicted himself, nor does it turn him into some kind of noble crusader against serfdom.

"Penalty codes for marauding"? You would have to prove your case with numbers. I know that the Russian, British and Austrian armies plundered, and it was tolerated by commanders.

Plundering was the way of waging war for the french. It was the only way they could advance that fast. This is a known fact. Just look up any military history book on the era. This is not the same as some soldiers getting out of hand. No matter if the penal codes were not always enforced, it still is completely different from giving your soldiers carte blanche. There is not a single account from the occupation that was done by the Austrians and British and Prussians that has such harrowing details as those under French occupation.

[Flagg]

Because, thinking about the bigger picture, Napoleon's law was - for its age - progressive and unifying (Europe joined up under secular governments anyway). The opposing forces were mostly reactionary compared to Napoleon. Let us not forget the sad story of the Spanish Inquisition.

His law however was contrary to most of his actions, which consisted upon visiting the greatest horrors upon Europe not seen since the Thirty years war. Just read an account on French troops and how they behaved in countries they invaded. In fact, Napoleons way of waging war was completely predicated upon preying on civilians.

Looking at the wiki page on the complete listing of issued Euro coinage there are coins depicting WW2, the Easter Uprising, the crowning of William I, D-Day, WW1 and more - all of which were permitted on the 2 euro coin so I'd say France are being pretty pissy and inconsistent with other coinage decisions intervening to prevent the Waterloo memorial being on a 2 euro piece.

Indeed, if Germany can live with WWII and WWI, then France can bloody well live with Waterloo.

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.

[Thanas]

Man, the french are not one to talk.

Here is what they released (just pertaining to dickwaving about Napoleon):

- Austerlitz-Bicentennial of the victory gold coin
- Marshal Bernadotte
- Arc de Triomphe
- Napoleon's coronation

And that is just Napoleon. They also issued coins about Vauban, D-Day etc. Seems they are just fine with waving their dick around when it is their victory (Austerlitz) but get pissed when Waterloo is mentioned. And I say this as somebody who despises Wellington.

[K. A. Pital]

And Napoleon didn't mind crushing liberal revolutions either. See Toussaint L'Ouverture. Napoleon was liberal only because it suited him, once he faced resistance he was just as barbaric as the other powers, even more so considering his way of waging war.

Except when I look at the civilian casualty count, it does not look as if France inflicted disproportional civilian casualties on its enemies. And please, Haiti is your counterexample? 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?

Napoleon was liberal because it provided him with an excuse to supplant previous rulers with his own family. He had no qualms of supporting autocratic regimes (Russia, Bavaria) or creating his own autocratic regimes (Rheinbund). Note that he did not turn Spain into a republic either.

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.

Was he better than Russia's serfdom? Sure. That does not absolve him of the damage he caused or the oppression he inflicted himself, nor does it turn him into some kind of noble crusader against serfdom.

Let's look at the achievements of his enemies. Restore absolutism? Check. Subdue continental Europe for Britain and autocratic Russia to play with? Check. Restore inquisition? Check. What else? Plunder and terrorize cities? Oh I am very sure that neither the British in Spain nor the Cossacks in Europe were benevolent liberators, pardon me.

Plundering was the way of waging war for the french. It was the only way they could advance that fast. This is a known fact. Just look up any military history book on the era. This is not the same as some soldiers getting out of hand. No matter if the penal codes were not always enforced, it still is completely different from giving your soldiers carte blanche. There is not a single account from the occupation that was done by the Austrians and British and Prussians that has such harrowing details as those under French occupation.

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.

[Welf]

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.