History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedFrench Monarchy vs Revolution and Napoleon

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Jul-2006 at 11:48
Originally posted by Gargoyle Gargoyle wrote:

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

I agree that Napoleon was a tyrant. However, you are still completely wrong. Now you are admitting it, you would rather live in a monarchy with next to no rights than in an Empire with many rights and freedoms. Napoleon gave his people rights, something that the Monarchy never gave them. I would rather live in a democracy, which I do, and if you like Monarchies and Dictatorships so much, why don't you just move to Iran?


WOW!    You agree that Napoleon was a Tyrant..... Excellent.....
Now Emperor Barbarossa, Militarily Speaking, do you agree that Napoleon was responsible for the Deaths of more people under his Reign than any French Monarch before or after him?

I actually do live in a Monarchy already, although it is a Constitutional Monarchy, for those people who don't know... Australia's head of state is HM Queen Elisabeth II. When I entered the Army I swore Allegience to the Queen and her descendants. (I can hear my Anscestors turning in their graves againsorry)
The French Monarchy gave it's people rights as well... such as... giving any person the right to hand the King a petition.... and the right for any person in the Kingdom to enter any Royal Residence, as long as they were well dressed. I wonder if they would let unannounced well dressed visiters to enter the White House and watch the President eat Dinner or go to the Bathroom????? So you see Emperor Barbarossa you are the one who is completely Wrong.

Yes I know that the above is a little bit silly, but really Emperor Barbarossa... tell me... what has changed after all these years..... The Rich Still get Richer... and the Poor Still get Poorer... only these days the Rich get Richer with "Rights and Freedoms", and the Poor get Poorer with "Rights and Freedoms".

PS. Do you know that we share the same Birthday... I too was born on the 20th of March.




You cannot blame Napoleon for the military deaths. He was defending France from a coalition of monarchies who did not want a more Republican style monarchy bordering them. The only reason nothing changed is because of these people, if there had been no foreign involvement the French Revolution would have succeeded. The monarchy was responsible for the famine, and that is why they were taken out, and that is why they were responsible for more deaths than Napoleon. You are still completely wrong on supporting the monarchy over Napoleon's Republic.

Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2006 at 13:22
Originally posted by Giannis Giannis wrote:

We can't know for sure what was in Napoleon's mind. But, I think that he gave a damn about people, because he wasn't a noble, he was one of the people in contrast with the royalty which though of herself choosen by God and the mere people, a tool of ambition.
 
He was a noble, wasn't he? Minor and impoverised nobility perhaps, but still...
 
The kings believed themselves chosen by God, and acted thus.
 
I would bet that Nappie would have made himself God, if he had thought he would get away with it. His ambition was clearly bottomless. All he cared about is power, and then more of it, maenwhile paying lipservice to freedom.
 
As a choice, I would prefer the openly tyrannical kings over the hypocritical tyrant emperor.

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Giannis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Giannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 04:14
Napoleon was a son of a lawyer. He was Corsican, at the time Corsica was consider an autonomous nation (before the annexation from France).
 
He also granted constitution, introdused law codes,abolished feudalism, created efficient goverments and fostered education, science and arts.
 
His dream was to build a european federation of free people, under a liberal goverment.
 
Napoleon promoted the growth of the modern state through his administrative and legal reforms, and his changes in the map of Europe stimulated movements for national unification.
 
I can agree that he wasn't a democrat, but I can't in anyway characterise him as ''hypocritical tyrant emperor''.
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
Back to Top
Emperor Barbarossa View Drop Down
Editorial Staff
Editorial Staff
Avatar

Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2882
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Emperor Barbarossa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 09:57
"As a choice, I would prefer the openly tyrannical kings over the hypocritical tyrant emperor."

As I said earlier, I would prefer Napoleon, a man of the people who gave the people rights, to a man like Louis XVI who would have let me starve to death.

Back to Top
Gargoyle View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gargoyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 10:01

Giannis,

The fact that he supported the downfall of the Monarchy, and then once in Power, created his Own Nobility and put his brothers and sisters and friends on various thrones of Europe, makes NAPOLEON the Ultimate HYPOCRITICAL TYRANT who ever lived!!!!!

You are right, as you say Napoleon was the son of a Lawyer. From memory, I think that Napoleons father was some kind of a Minor Corsican Noble. His family were members of the Board of the Elderly at Ajaccio, the attendance of which the French recognised as a Minor Title of Nobility, but what that Title was escapes me for the moment. Or was it... The fact that during the Corsican Struggle with France in 1769, Carlo Buonaparte (Napoleons father) changed his alleigence from the Corsican Rebel, Pasquale Paoli, to the French side, so the French then acknowledged the Nobility of his own Family????? I'm not sure... but the fact is that Napoleon through his Father was some kind of a Minor Corsican Noble. And remember this..... At one stage Napoleon attended the Military School of Brienne-le- Chateau, where only the children of the Nobility were allowed to attend, at the Kings expense of course.



Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!
Back to Top
Gargoyle View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gargoyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 10:14
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

"As I said earlier, I would prefer Napoleon, a man of the people who gave the people rights, to a man like Louis XVI who would have let me starve to death.


I have to admit that Louis XVI really was a failure as a King, the man was just too nice and too naive. What France needed at that time was a Strong King in the mold of Louis XIV, because only a personality like that can Control the Nastier ellements of the French Nobility of that time. If only he had listened to his one time Finance Minister TURGOT, then things might have turned out differently for him.



Jugo de sandia es muy bueno!
Back to Top
Giannis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Giannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 10:29
Further the less, Napoleon was treated as an ''outcast'' from his schoolmates, because of his origins and language (his mother-tongue was italian).
 
Anyway, we can't neglect the fact that he give rights (constitution, laws) to his people, at time that other monarchies didn't gave a damn.
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Jul-2006 at 10:40
But who are 'the people'? In the Netherlands, only a portion of the upper classes, the nobility and the bourgoisie supported the Frence occupyers. As this upper class was only about 15% of the population, and only a part of them supported Napoleon, this does not seen to me like 'the people' agreed.
 
Even better: 'the people', as in the plebs, was fervently and violently supporting the Orange-Nassaus, the ruling familiy of the time, and the forefathers of our present royal family. They rioted and resisted violently.
 
And as famine goes: the Dutch were not starving. In fact, there had not been famines in the Netherlands since the Middle Ages, and even then not often. Nappie might have given the French food and freedom, but he forgot to ask the Dutch if they wantde or needed it before he invaded.
 


Edited by Aelfgifu - 17-Jul-2006 at 10:41

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 04:09
Originally posted by Giannis Giannis wrote:

Further the less, Napoleon was treated as an ''outcast'' from his schoolmates, because of his origins and language (his mother-tongue was italian).
 
Anyway, we can't neglect the fact that he give rights (constitution, laws) to his people, at time that other monarchies didn't gave a damn.
 
Apart from the British example, HRE Joseph II, Maximilian Joseph of Bavaria, Catherine of Russia, even Frederick the Great at least gave a damn. Voltaire was on good terms with all of them.
 
The eighteenth century enlightenment had affected many of the monarchies of Europe, though revulsion against the French Revolution obviously had a counter effect.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Giannis View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Greece
Status: Offline
Points: 493
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Giannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Jul-2006 at 05:18
Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

But who are 'the people'? In the Netherlands, only a portion of the upper classes, the nobility and the bourgoisie supported the Frence occupyers. As this upper class was only about 15% of the population, and only a part of them supported Napoleon, this does not seen to me like 'the people' agreed.
 
Even better: 'the people', as in the plebs, was fervently and violently supporting the Orange-Nassaus, the ruling familiy of the time, and the forefathers of our present royal family. They rioted and resisted violently.
 
And as famine goes: the Dutch were not starving. In fact, there had not been famines in the Netherlands since the Middle Ages, and even then not often. Nappie might have given the French food and freedom, but he forgot to ask the Dutch if they wantde or needed it before he invaded.
 
 
I'm not an expert on Dutch history, but as far as I know there were two parties in Netherlands that time the ''patriots'' and the ''royalists'', the first welcomed the french troops, and the second supported the not so beloved  '' Stadhoulder'' Willem V who fled in England.
 
I believe that the upper classes and the nobility were in the ''royalist'' party, correct me if i'm wrong.
 
Louis Napoleon entered Den Haag (The Hague) on June 23rd. The reception, unlike in Spain was a hearty one, for one, many were relieved that their country had not been simply annexed into France.
Louis Napoleon introduced a Unified Currency, the guilder (until then, the provinces and certain cities had minted coins) and had a Penal Law Code compiled, largely modelled on French law. He also strove to improve health care and education. Over the years, his popularity actually increased, Louis Napoleon had gained the sympathy of many of his subjects by aiding the victims of floods in 1808 and 1809.
The Royal Academy of Sciences, Literature and the Arts at Amsterdam, the Royal Library at Den Haag and the State Museum for Paintings were founded in 1808.
 
Little changed, also and after the annexation, the same officials, both dutch and french, continued to do work for the government in the country, which still remained outside the French tariff system.
 
The tide changed after the failure of the Russian campaign, 30000 troops from Netherlands never returned, the French empire began to lose power. High taxes, luck of money and goods, war casualties, were the reasons, according to my believes, that Dutch people allied with the English coalition.
 
Give me a place to stand and I will move the world.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2006 at 10:02

Mostly true, yes. I learned it was the uper classes which supported the French and the lower classes which supported the Stadhouder. There are still childrens songs remaining which were then sung by the 'plebs', although their meaning is now lost to most people. Of course, nothing is ever this black and white. The nobility probably was split in halves over the issue, but the nobility at this time was already in decline, power-wise. The most important and rich faction in the Netherlands was the bourgoisie, the Traderclass. And they had most to gain from a revoltion like the French, and had in the past lost greatly from the sea-wars with the English. And in its history, the Netherlands have always been split into factions who favored either the English, the French or the Prussians. When you are a small country, you need allies.

It is true that Louis Napoleon tried his very best to be a good king, but this was also his downfall. When things started to go wrong for Napoleon in Russia, Louis took side with the Dutch protesting against the heavy taxes and draft-rates. This, of course Napoleon could not take, his own brother against him, so he dismissed Louis and annexxed the Low Countries.
 
So, yes, I have to admit the French brought us a constitution and civil services (he started official registration of births, deaths, marriages, and last name), but I doubt if those would never have reached us had he not invaded. I think, on the whole, he did more bad than good. The French invasion is still considered as a foreign occupation in the Neherlands, on the same level as the occupations of the Spanish and the Germans, not as a blessing.


Edited by Aelfgifu - 19-Jul-2006 at 10:04

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Jamaica
Status: Offline
Points: 985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 07:34
Originally posted by Giannis Giannis wrote:

Napoleon was a son of a lawyer. He was Corsican, at the time Corsica was consider an autonomous nation (before the annexation from France).
 
He also granted constitution, introdused law codes,abolished feudalism, created efficient goverments and fostered education, science and arts.
 
His dream was to build a european federation of free people, under a liberal goverment.
 
Napoleon promoted the growth of the modern state through his administrative and legal reforms, and his changes in the map of Europe stimulated movements for national unification.
 
I can agree that he wasn't a democrat, but I can't in anyway characterise him as ''hypocritical tyrant emperor''.
 
To start with Corsica was annexed one year before Napoleon was born. So Napoleon was born french.
 
And second all the achievements you credit Napoleon were all  the achievements of the First republic. Napoleon was hardly an innovator since it was the Republicans that created everything. Even the military formations and tactics weren't the devise of the republicans(The tactics of turning weaken Flanks were pioneered by republican like Moreau at Tourcoing, where they defeated a larger Anglo-austrian using the tactics). Basically the man rode on the back of his marshalls. He sat his @ss at the back sending orders, some of which never reached the his marsahlls. At Jena-Auestadt, the fool fought he was fighting the main enemy body when Davout at Auestadt was in fact fighting the largest body.
 
Napoleon is overrated; it was his marshalls, the French army and the heritage of The Jacobins/republicans that made of greatness. He was simply able to unify France, but overhall he was a miserable failure lacking the the will and the resilience of uncompromising Jacobins, who at least didn't win just battles but always wars.
 
The man was failure and lost France most territories acquired by the First republic and louisiana (by previous French monarchs). (that fool sold Louisiana). I'll strangle him personally were he still living. His accomplishment was nigh to nothing.
 
 
Revolutionary France
 
 
Revolutionary France and satellites.
 
Look what we are now after that disaster of Napoleon, that fool has no long term vision.
 


Edited by Quetzalcoatl - 24-Jul-2006 at 07:51
Back to Top
Quetzalcoatl View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Jamaica
Status: Offline
Points: 985
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Quetzalcoatl Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 07:47
Originally posted by Gargoyle Gargoyle wrote:

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Emperor Barbarossa wrote:

"As I said earlier, I would prefer Napoleon, a man of the people who gave the people rights, to a man like Louis XVI who would have let me starve to death.


I have to admit that Louis XVI really was a failure as a King, the man was just too nice and too naive. What France needed at that time was a Strong King in the mold of Louis XIV, because only a personality like that can Control the Nastier ellements of the French Nobility of that time. If only he had listened to his one time Finance Minister TURGOT, then things might have turned out differently for him.



 
All monarchs were useless except The Sun king and Augustus. The Jacobins were the greatest rulers; I dream of the day the first republic will be restored to France.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Jul-2006 at 07:53

I dream of the day the first republic will be restored to France.

Well, dream on, I would say....LOL Not gonna happen anytime soon....


Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 05:03
 
Originally posted by ataman ataman wrote:

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

The whole idea that leaders have a responsebility towards their people is decisively twentieth century.
 
This idea is much older than you think. Polish-Lithuanian Coomonwealth is a good example.
 
It goes right back to Beowulf in germanic traditions. In fact you can trace it right back into prehistory, with the responsibility of the leader to ensure the fertility of the fields (or the success of the hunt, or whatever) by whatever magical methods were deemed effective.
 
Failing to do that was a pretty fatal thing.


Edited by gcle2003 - 25-Jul-2006 at 05:04
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Aelfgifu View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 25-Jun-2006
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Points: 3391
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Aelfgifu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 05:29
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Originally posted by ataman ataman wrote:

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

The whole idea that leaders have a responsebility towards their people is decisively twentieth century.
 
This idea is much older than you think. Polish-Lithuanian Coomonwealth is a good example.
 
It goes right back to Beowulf in germanic traditions. In fact you can trace it right back into prehistory, with the responsibility of the leader to ensure the fertility of the fields (or the success of the hunt, or whatever) by whatever magical methods were deemed effective.
 
Failing to do that was a pretty fatal thing.
[/QUOTE]
 
Keeping your warriors happy by giving them lots of gold is not quite the same as feeling a duty to keep your people from war and famine. Wink
 
Yes, the idea of the king as benefactor and mecenas is older, but the ideas of the governments resposebility towards the poor as wel as the rich is a bit later.... Perhaps pre-20th-century, but I doubt Napoleon was gifted with it....


Edited by Aelfgifu - 25-Jul-2006 at 05:30

Women hold their councils of war in kitchens: the knives are there, and the cups of coffee, and the towels to dry the tears.
Back to Top
Ponce de Leon View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Really Hot Stuff

Joined: 11-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2975
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ponce de Leon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 14:41
Originally posted by Gargoyle Gargoyle wrote:

[QUOTE=Emperor Barbarossa]

PS. Do you know that we share the same Birthday... I too was born on the 20th of March.




Hey! I was born exactly one month away! Feb 20!
    
Back to Top
Exarchus View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Exarchus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Jul-2006 at 15:07
Originally posted by Giannis Giannis wrote:

That could be an interesting topic in Historical Amusement. Would USA be intepented without the help of France?


Good idea.
Vae victis!
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Jul-2006 at 06:04
 
Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Originally posted by ataman ataman wrote:

Originally posted by Aelfgifu Aelfgifu wrote:

The whole idea that leaders have a responsebility towards their people is decisively twentieth century.
 
This idea is much older than you think. Polish-Lithuanian Coomonwealth is a good example.
 
It goes right back to Beowulf in germanic traditions. In fact you can trace it right back into prehistory, with the responsibility of the leader to ensure the fertility of the fields (or the success of the hunt, or whatever) by whatever magical methods were deemed effective.
 
Failing to do that was a pretty fatal thing.
 
Keeping your warriors happy by giving them lots of gold is not quite the same as feeling a duty to keep your people from war and famine. Wink
 
Yes, the idea of the king as benefactor and mecenas is older, but the ideas of the governments resposebility towards the poor as wel as the rich is a bit later.... Perhaps pre-20th-century, but I doubt Napoleon was gifted with it....
[/QUOTE]
 
The distinction between the poor and the rich is a pretty late development.
 
However, what i was mainly getting at was the magico-religious role of the king, which really goes back a long way.
 
I would also throw in however the thought that the feudal contract itself was a two-way one: the lord - in theory (buth then we're talking about the theory not the practice) the lord owed service to the vassal as well as the vassal to the lord.
 
The idea that the governing power owes a duty to the people is a  very old one: the practice is possibly a different matter.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Gargoyle View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 25-May-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 681
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Gargoyle Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2007 at 22:54

[this was posted in the Death of Napoleon thread]

Originally posted by mamikon mamikon wrote:

why do people dislike Napoleon? Confused


Dear Mamikon,

One reason people dislike Napoleon is because he supported the downfall of the Monarchy, and then once in Power, created his Own Nobility and put his brothers and sisters and friends on various thrones of Europe. This makes NAPOLEON the Ultimate HYPOCRITICAL TYRANT who ever lived!!!!! He is also Responsible for the Deaths of Millions of French and European lives.... and for what?.... a supposed French Glory that Never Eventuated!?



Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.