Napoleon redivivus…Res ipsa loquitor
“If you had seen one day of war, you would pray to God that you would never see another.” – Napoleon
Green softball shirt came home with me from Fort Meade – I liked how it looked…
Historians would agree on two things about Napoleon. First, he was an extraordinary man, a self-made man. His drive, will, military genius and charisma made him a great man, a world historical figure, a man who made history. Machiavelli would have found Napoleon to be his perfect prince. Second, by spreading revolutionary ideals and institutions, Napoleon made it impossible for the restoration of the ancien regime. After Napoleon there was no turning back: feudalism was dead, society was secularized, the modern nation state replaced the dynastic state, and the bourgeoisie became the new class of privilege and status.
Maurya @ mackinlay • 3 months ago
FYI It was Britain who first declared war against Napoleon. The only war Napoleon initiated was the stealth invasion of Spain. All the other wars were forced on him by the Kings of Europe. He could have just annexed both Prussia and the Austrian empire but he didn’t he made them allies and they betrayed him in the end. Russia was crushed at Freidland  but Napoleon didn’t annex any Russian land especially Russian Poland. He didn’t impose a war indemnity. He wanted the Russians to be his allies but what did the Tsar do betrayed him [compelled] for his magnanimity. Britain with the loot that was being shipped from India funded the Royalties of Europe to constantly fight Napoleon. IF Blucher didn’t arrive at that critical time Wellington would have been whipped. The supporting troops [VI Corps; Young Guard] for the Imperial guard were diverted to fend off the Prussian attacks. It was timely arrival of Blucher that saved the coalition. nothing more nothing less and stupidity of Ney in destroying Napoleons cavalry by throwing it away in a nonsense charge.
Do I embrace it or reject it [Napoleonic legend]? I do not believe it is true, if ‘embracing’ it implies an uncritical acceptance of its content. Napoleon was not superhuman on the battlefield; nor had he been the ‘petit caporal’ of 1815 throughout his career; and he undoubtedly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of troops, to say nothing of civilians, in the pursuit of his dream. One should not blind oneself to that reality. But the dream has a fascination of its own – the sense of an empire that was built on efficient administration and justice, the insistence on equality before the law, the embrace of meritocracy and careers open to talent, the image of the emperor as a man of the people, risen from the ranks of the people. The Napoleonic myth appeals to the egalitarian in all of us. But that is only one part of the appeal. The other – the constant quest for military glory, for conquest, for an almost colonial grip on the peoples of Europe (and Michael Broers has quite specifically equated the spirit of the First Empire with European colonial expansion in the nineteenth century) – is less easy to empathize with. For the Napoleonic legend was also, of course, a military one, and it would be especially powerful among Napoleon’s old soldiers once they were – however unsatisfactorily – reintegrated into civilian life. It was a legend built on nostalgia, on the regrets felt for a past youth, ‘a world we have lost’. The fact that that legend lived on so relentlessly in the France of the nineteenth century is itself an eloquent commentary on the politics of the regimes that replaced the Empire.
Frey=Frei=Free=Frank [speaking frankly, freely] =Franc=Francia=France
FRANKLIN: Middle English frankeleyn, from Anglo-French franclein, from franc
Date: 14th century: a medieval English landowner of free but not noble birth
He found him fully conscious and showing the upmost self-control. The Duc took the hand of the Emperor, which he brought to his lips. All my life, he said, has been devoted to your service, and I only regret that, to you, it cannot be of any further service! Duroc, said the Emperor, in another life time! It is there where you will wait for me, and there where we will meet again.
I believe in what you have to say, please don’t doubt me.
City of Columbus Mayor’s Office
ADA & Veteran’s Affairs Coordinator
90 W. Broad St. 2nd Floor
Columbus, OH 43215-4520
“A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have.” Theodore Roosevelt, 1903
The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries, 1812
St. Helena, ‘Cursed Rock’ of Napoleon’s Exile
The shirt worn by Napoleon Bonaparte on the night before he died.
Facts constitute evidence that allows one to draw a conclusion. If more facts are required to demonstrate that the impossible is possible, contact me. There is no contrary evidence.
Decide for your Self: congruent behavior – James Leininger
Facts about reincarnation:
Forty-five years ago: I picked up a new book about Waterloo from the library shelf. Attracted to the cavalry pictures, I read that the British squares stood up to the French. “That’s great,” I thought, “like the peasants standing up to the knights.” Reading that the French cavalry was wasted and the French should have won the battle, I put the book back on the shelf and wondered why I was angry.
La garde au feu Waterloo (The Middle Guard advances against the Allied right center at Waterloo.)
Open in new window to Enlarge
On 19 October, 1812, the Grande Armée left Moscow and began its miserable retreat. A month later, on 25 November, 1812, it arrived at the Berezina river, which barred its progression to the west. Under attack from the Russians, the army escaped destruction thanks to the sacrifice of the pontonniers of general Eblé who constructed two bridges which allowed the major part of the army to cross the river on 27 and 28 November. The following day, the Grande Armée was forced to abandon its positions and decided to destroy the bridges, abandoning nearly 10,000 men, women and children on the eastern bank of the river. The term “Berezina” has since entered the French language as a synonym for disaster, in reference to the 25,000 combatants and 30,000 non-combatants who were killed. The battle was nevertheless a tactical victory for Napoleon, who managed to get his army out of a potentially fatal situation.
This painting, which depicts the events very precisely, was probably painted by a witness or a veteran like general Langeron (1763-1831), a French émigré fighting on the Russian side, to whom we owe the following narrative: “Wittgenstein’s light artillery rained bullets and shells on the multitude crammed in by the bridge; on can picture the awful disorder that reigned, the cries of the unfortunate valets, stretcher-bearers, the sick and the dying, women and children, French and foreigners, émigrés to Moscow who followed the army; crushed under the wheels of chariots, between carriages, mutilated by the strike of shells or perishing under the cossacks” pikes, throwing themselves on the burning bridge, where they were devoured by flames and swallowed by the water.”
Another major factor in the current stalemate is the degree to which the country has polarized around the Obama presidency. Conservatives see the president as someone who came to office preaching unity and post-partisanship but who has been, as one Republican put it, a hyper-partisan with an agenda deliberately designed to increase the power of the federal government. There is virtually no middle ground when it comes to assessments of President Obama.
There seems to be no easy way out of all this, absent some large external shock to the system. But the system has been shocked any number of times over the past two decades — from the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to the massive recession in 2008 — and each time has quickly reverted to partisan conflict. Nor did the election of Obama in 2008 or his reelection in 2012 bring about any real truce. In fact, it has resulted in the opposite.
See The Evidence PHOTOGRAPHS