4 ms·

Well, I think it's also telling that now Napoleon's reign could be thought of as "this weird short-lived French empire", because while it short-lived, the Napol

Well, I think it's also telling that now Napoleon's reign could be thought of as "this weird short-lived French empire", because while it short-lived, the Napoleonic empire in many ways set the stage, created the model for the modern world. Certainly, Napoleon was defeated but the forces of France at that time represented a kind of progress, a kind of progress that other nations were only able to defeat by adopting - the mass army at the service of a centralized state implies a kind of democracy and mass participation in life that a feudal system couldn't manage (to name just one of enumerable example). That's why even in defeat, Napoleon represented a fundamental change in the world.

sndean 6y ago
Oh yeah, no disrespect to Napoleon or France. I have Andrew Roberts' Napoleon in my reading queue for later during this quarantine. I just meant that it represents a very foreign era relative to now, though maybe I should think of it as the start of the current era based on your comment.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  Yes, My point is now the Napoleonic Empire can seem a weird little nook of history. Closer to the era, it cast a much larger shadow but things must pass.
BurningFrog 6y ago
Yeah, you can think of the Napoleon Wars as "World War Zero", and Napoleon as the Hitler of his time. As you can maybe tell, the aspect of modernity where mass wars with millions of dead sweep the world because some dictator wants it, is not my favorite one. Still, you're not wrong!
- Koshkin 6y ago
  I think Napoleon was more similar to Caesar than to Hitler, and that modern universal sense of disdain towards Hitler is a sign of progress.
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Maybe. The winners write history, and we've always hated those who lose wars.
  - shadowprofile77 6y ago
    That's not as much of an improvement as you might think... Caesar was absolutely murderous and no stranger to ordering ethnic genocide either.. During the Gallic Wars, his armies butchered off at least a million and a half people, while enslaving a few hundred thousand others, partly for the crude sake of boosting Caesar's political career and paying off his debts. Paving the way for smoother Roman colonization was another benefit of this genocide. These things should remind you much more of Hitler than they do of Napoleon. Bear in mind also that this was done without modern weapons and killing techniques. Hardly a humane ruler. That Caesar happened to be much more rational and erudite than the German dictator certainly helped his long-term image, but just because 2000+ years of history and some good political observations for posterity blot out the mass murder of civilians doesn't make it any less grotesque.
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  The Seven Years' War (1756--1763) has been described as the first true world war: It involved all five European great powers of the time--the Kingdoms of Great Britain, Prussia and France, the Habsburg Monarchy of Austria and the Russian Empire--plus many of Europe's middle powers and spanned five continents, affecting Europe, the Americas, West Africa, India, and the Philippines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War
  - shadowprofile77 6y ago
    It was a global conflict that involved all of Europe's Great Powers, but the 7 Years' War just wasn't exceptionally lethal or even that destructive. On the other hand, the 30 Years' War was much less global in its geography but absolutely devastated central Europe, and caused at least 8 million deaths, most of them civilian. This makes it 10 times or more deadlier than the 7 Years' War. The older conflict was also a crucial game changer for world history because it led directly to the Treaty of Westphalia and the entrenchment of the modern, much more formalized nation state.
    - dredmorbius 6y ago
      Classifications are endless and arbitrary. What I'd noted was that the 7YW has been called the first true world war (to my knowledge in Manfred Weissenbacher, in Sources of Power, (2009) https://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-forges-human-history-volume-1-and-volume-2/oclc/712986243 https://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-f...), and represents the first time a single conflict and set of belligerents spanned the globe. The argument isn't based on intensity of conflict or consequent significance but areal scope. Previously, multi-continent conflicts either represented contiguous spillover of generally localised battles (e.g., a few millennia of scrapes between southern & south-eastern Europe and Asia Minor), or what were largely maritime conflicts more properly considered as focused on a body of water, most often the Mediterranean (literally, the middle of the world), positioned between Europa, Asia, and Africa. Notable during Roman times but extending well before and since. The 7YW represented the first time global force projection, even if weak by subsequent or current standards, was even possible. Its role in setting up Britain and the English-speaking world for global dominance may well be greater than you're allowing for as well.

sndean 6y ago

Oh yeah, no disrespect to Napoleon or France. I have Andrew Roberts' Napoleon in my reading queue for later during this quarantine. I just meant that it represents a very foreign era relative to now, though maybe I should think of it as the start of the current era based on your comment.

joe_the_user 6y ago
Yes, My point is now the Napoleonic Empire can seem a weird little nook of history. Closer to the era, it cast a much larger shadow but things must pass.

BurningFrog 6y ago

Yeah, you can think of the Napoleon Wars as "World War Zero", and Napoleon as the Hitler of his time. As you can maybe tell, the aspect of modernity where mass wars with millions of dead sweep the world because some dictator wants it, is not my favorite one. Still, you're not wrong!

Koshkin 6y ago
I think Napoleon was more similar to Caesar than to Hitler, and that modern universal sense of disdain towards Hitler is a sign of progress.
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Maybe. The winners write history, and we've always hated those who lose wars.
- shadowprofile77 6y ago
  That's not as much of an improvement as you might think... Caesar was absolutely murderous and no stranger to ordering ethnic genocide either.. During the Gallic Wars, his armies butchered off at least a million and a half people, while enslaving a few hundred thousand others, partly for the crude sake of boosting Caesar's political career and paying off his debts. Paving the way for smoother Roman colonization was another benefit of this genocide. These things should remind you much more of Hitler than they do of Napoleon. Bear in mind also that this was done without modern weapons and killing techniques. Hardly a humane ruler. That Caesar happened to be much more rational and erudite than the German dictator certainly helped his long-term image, but just because 2000+ years of history and some good political observations for posterity blot out the mass murder of civilians doesn't make it any less grotesque.
dredmorbius 6y ago
The Seven Years' War (1756--1763) has been described as the first true world war: It involved all five European great powers of the time--the Kingdoms of Great Britain, Prussia and France, the Habsburg Monarchy of Austria and the Russian Empire--plus many of Europe's middle powers and spanned five continents, affecting Europe, the Americas, West Africa, India, and the Philippines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Years%27_War
- shadowprofile77 6y ago
  It was a global conflict that involved all of Europe's Great Powers, but the 7 Years' War just wasn't exceptionally lethal or even that destructive. On the other hand, the 30 Years' War was much less global in its geography but absolutely devastated central Europe, and caused at least 8 million deaths, most of them civilian. This makes it 10 times or more deadlier than the 7 Years' War. The older conflict was also a crucial game changer for world history because it led directly to the Treaty of Westphalia and the entrenchment of the modern, much more formalized nation state.
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Classifications are endless and arbitrary. What I'd noted was that the 7YW has been called the first true world war (to my knowledge in Manfred Weissenbacher, in Sources of Power, (2009) https://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-forges-human-history-volume-1-and-volume-2/oclc/712986243 https://www.worldcat.org/title/sources-of-power-how-energy-f...), and represents the first time a single conflict and set of belligerents spanned the globe. The argument isn't based on intensity of conflict or consequent significance but areal scope. Previously, multi-continent conflicts either represented contiguous spillover of generally localised battles (e.g., a few millennia of scrapes between southern & south-eastern Europe and Asia Minor), or what were largely maritime conflicts more properly considered as focused on a body of water, most often the Mediterranean (literally, the middle of the world), positioned between Europa, Asia, and Africa. Notable during Roman times but extending well before and since. The 7YW represented the first time global force projection, even if weak by subsequent or current standards, was even possible. Its role in setting up Britain and the English-speaking world for global dominance may well be greater than you're allowing for as well.