Why Robespierre lost his head! France needed Napoleon?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Spoilers, please.

But anyway, that guy is butt-ugly.

That "guy" as you put it, would be Louis XIV.

And he is ugly. Butt-ugly, in fact.

[Nirya]

That "guy" as you put it, would be Louis XIV.

And he is ugly. Butt-ugly, in fact.

Yes, he wasn't the most handsome of fellows, was he?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And he is ugly. Butt-ugly, in fact.

Yes, he wasn't the most handsome of fellows, was he?

I see why people preferred Napoleon to him.

[Nirya]

Yes, he wasn't the most handsome of fellows, was he?

I see why people preferred Napoleon to him.

I do not hate Napoleon, tis Robespierre whom I detest.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Napoleon was the right man in the right place at the right time. Alas, the Brits wouldn't let him be.

[Nervium]

Napoleon was the right man in the right place at the right time. Alas, the Brits wouldn't let him be.

Napoléon was uncontrolable.
A loose cannon, propping up friendly regimes everywhere in Europe, he was bound to offend the British.

[Nierr]

Sole goal of British foreign policy in Europe: Don't upset the apple cart. Napoleon broke the balance of power. So he had to go.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Napoleon was the right man in the right place at the right time. Alas, the Brits wouldn't let him be.

Napoléon was uncontrolable.
A loose cannon, propping up friendly regimes everywhere in Europe, he was bound to offend the British.

As far as I am aware, Napoleon's only war of aggression was his invasion of Russia, which does fit rather nicely under the 'preemptive defense' heading, since it was plainly obvious that the Russians (with British encouragement,) were preparing to attack France.

If we want to talk about loose cannons, I could mention Copenhagen.

[Shie]

Napoléon was uncontrolable.
A loose cannon, propping up friendly regimes everywhere in Europe, he was bound to offend the British.

As far as I am aware, Napoleon's only war of aggression was his invasion of Russia, which does fit rather nicely under the 'preemptive defense' heading, since it was plainly obvious that the Russians (with British encouragement,) were preparing to attack France.

If we want to talk about loose cannons, I could mention Copenhagen.

I thought Russia continued trading with Napoleon's enemies who he defended himself against so he had to redefend himself against a possible Russian attack in case they were preparing for one.

[Liberaxia]

Authoritarian Robespierre was elected for a due term. Emperor Napoleon ruled for life.

Robespierre was a Jacobin, Montagnard; the Girondin Monarchists organized a counter Revolution which inevitably led to Military Dictatorship.

Yes. Once the Girondin Monarchists won their counter-Revolution, it was Historically inevitable that a Military strong Man would seize the Power. BUT I disagree that Girondin victory was inevitable.

The Jacobin's do not care for elected governments.

The scary thing about the Jacobins is that they embraced the classical liberal rhetoric of natural rights.

[Densaner]

Napoleon did some good. His reforms to law were a wise move. Unfortunately he was also an imperialist who invaded most of Europe and killed millions of people.

[Dracoria]

The metaphor was intended to end at the turning France around part. To be honest, I actually respect Napoleon, and wouldn't compare him to Hitler. That was just the first figure I can think of who turned a Republic into a proper power again. I suppose the Chinese Communists or Lenin could have done the same, and probably in a less offensive way.

As for the Lenin comparison, well think of it this way: during the First World War, the Russian army was awfully equipped. In one battle, only about 1/3 of soldiers had weapons, the others had to head forwards when their friends died and pick up the weapon. During the time of the First French Republic, some soldiers voted not to fight with their army commanders, and left. Both of that changed when the aforementioned figures came to power. Maybe the Russian army didn't change too much, but conditions were said to have improved. I should think that I don't need to explain the Napoleon one.

Things weren't that much better by WWII for the Russians. They had industrial capacity, but initially lacked proper priorities and many on the frontlines still lacked proper firearms for at least the first couple years; even by the end of the war the issue hadn't been fully resolved. The one non-civil war Lenin was leader during was the Polish-Soviet war; I'm not sure just how bad the equipment situation was, but in all likelihood it was terrible on both sides (Poland being recognized as a sovereign country for less than a year and Russia being at the tail end of another set of revolutions and civil war) and Lenin can't be fully blamed for that. If anything, the improved conditions in mid to late WWII were due to Stalin, whose comparisons to Hitler would be a bit more accurate as well.

The French had equipment during the First Republic, but their men lacked morale. They had little reason to fight for those above them, particularly if their own hometowns were far from the fighting and especially so if the order was to fight other Frenchmen. The upheavals in leadership (as well as the anti-monarchist peril it represented) marked France as a target, as well, which certainly didn't help its situation.

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Napoleon did some good. His reforms to law were a wise move. Unfortunately he was also an imperialist who invaded most of Europe and killed millions of people.

Today I learned that fighting defensive wars and imposing really quite reasonable terms on the people you thoroughly trounced after they attacked you is imperialist.

[Nervium]

The Jacobin's do not care for elected governments.

The scary thing about the Jacobins is that they embraced the classical liberal rhetoric of natural rights.

That's not that scary. Despotic regimes can cling to whatever they want to justify their existence.

[Dracoria]

Napoleon did some good. His reforms to law were a wise move. Unfortunately he was also an imperialist who invaded most of Europe and killed millions of people.

Today I learned that fighting defensive wars and imposing really quite reasonable terms on the people you thoroughly trounced after they attacked you is imperialist.

[sarcasm]Indeed. Inflicting the Treaty of Versailles on the defeated would have been far more fair.[/sarcasm]

[Edit: indicating sarcasm. Just remembered how many on this forum take everything seriously.]

[Seleucas]

The Jacobin's do not care for elected governments.

The scary thing about the Jacobins is that they embraced the classical liberal rhetoric of natural rights.

Not really unexpected; classical liberal rhetoric tends towards monism, e.g. social contract theory, such that we 'consent' to whatever is done to us for the body politic. Hence, the humanitarian with a guillotine.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Guillotine is humanitarian, better than strangulation, burning, starvation.One chop and your are dead.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Guillotine is humanitarian, better than strangulation, burning, starvation.One chop and your are dead.

Ironically, the Guillotine's namesake was against execution altogether, but compromised by suggesting they use something quicker than a rusty axe.

[Benuty]

Guillotine is humanitarian, better than strangulation, burning, starvation.One chop and your are dead.

Ironically, the Guillotine's namesake was against execution altogether, but compromised by suggesting they use something quicker than a rusty axe.

Until the blades rusted and peoples necks were only chopped halfway through. Those poor sods writhed in pain as infection wracked their bodies if they were lucky the fever would kill them before long.

[Densaner]

Napoleon did some good. His reforms to law were a wise move. Unfortunately he was also an imperialist who invaded most of Europe and killed millions of people.

Today I learned that fighting defensive wars and imposing really quite reasonable terms on the people you thoroughly trounced after they attacked you is imperialist.

Perhaps his title of Emperor was a clue.

[Dracoria]

Ironically, the Guillotine's namesake was against execution altogether, but compromised by suggesting they use something quicker than a rusty axe.

Until the blades rusted and peoples necks were only chopped halfway through. Those poor sods writhed in pain as infection wracked their bodies if they were lucky the fever would kill them before long.

It's too bad noone ever recorded a PSA about keeping your guillotine's blade clean and sharpened. I could see Destro stopping an execution in progress to explain how a quick, efficient kill will allow more executions per day in exchange for just a few minutes sharpening the blade. And knowing is half the battle!

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

Ironically, the Guillotine's namesake was against execution altogether, but compromised by suggesting they use something quicker than a rusty axe.

Until the blades rusted and peoples necks were only chopped halfway through. Those poor sods writhed in pain as infection wracked their bodies if they were lucky the fever would kill them before long.

Have you got any statistics of guillotines failing AND the Peasants not finishing the job and the Aristocrat was infected from the wound and died some weeks later

[OMGeverynameistaken]

Ironically, the Guillotine's namesake was against execution altogether, but compromised by suggesting they use something quicker than a rusty axe.

Until the blades rusted and peoples necks were only chopped halfway through. Those poor sods writhed in pain as infection wracked their bodies if they were lucky the fever would kill them before long.

Basic human anatomy says that having your neck chopped 'only' halfway through is still going to kill you fairly dead.

Having your spine impacted by a 90 pound metal cleaver, regardless of its sharpness, is fairly deadly.

[Shie]

The scary thing about the Jacobins is that they embraced the classical liberal rhetoric of natural rights.

That's not that scary. Despotic regimes can cling to whatever they want to justify their existence.

As if the democratic don't do the same.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That's not that scary. Despotic regimes can cling to whatever they want to justify their existence.

As if the democratic don't do the same.

There's a lot more going for them than totalitarians though.