 |
| |
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
No, sorry, stop right there.
That's a gross oversimplification of continental European history, ignoring the influence of the Philosophes, the Encyclopedists, English liberalism/constituional monarchy, the American Revolution, and homegrown republican sentiments, not to mention the division between Reformation and Counter Reformation Catholic European nations and Protestant European nations.
In the struggle against the Spanish in the Eighty Years' War, for instance, it would seem only too clear that a Dutch national identity was formed, based around those of the United Provinces with a majority Protestant/Calvinist population, leading to the cultural Golden Age of the 17th and early 18th centuries.
Modern nationalism is more properly found in the Treaty of Westphalia, where the principle of cuius regio, eius religio is explicitly promoted in the political settlement.
In fact, language and literature (especially religious literature, which would have been what most people were exposed to) was already shaping peoples into nations- from sources such as William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale's translations of the Bible into English, to Luther's German New Testament.
The English Puritans, for instance, saw themselves as the inheritors of the mantle of the Chosen People because of the way they read the Bible and used it to interpret their times. |
You are wholly right it was an oversimplification, done mostly for the sake of time. But I am not certain it is incorrect. What I meant when I said Napoleon was the indirect founder of German nationalism was that the Germans saw him and the French as something they could be: united and powerful. Then you get people like Hegel and Fichte who start propagating these ideas, go decades and wars later, and you have a united Germany. The Napoleonic Era was what really stimulated the Germans to throw in their lot as a unified entity....now as we know this German nationalism led to three wars which left a united Germany as the strongest nation in the world. I was mostly referring to this when I talked about those events in the 19th century. BUT, as you well know, the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 can also be traced back to the Revolution and the ideas promulgated during that time. You bring up a great point about the philosophes, but keep in mind that the REVOLUTION exploded their ideas universally....so the French Revolution inherently contained their thoughts and feelings. That's why I tied the events for constitutionality and democracy to the Revolution rather than another entity. Treaty of Westphalia modern nationalism???? Umm no buddy....Napoleon is what made possible something which he didn't want to: he inflamed people's passions for their own nations.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Nope. Russia by the end of the war was an unstoppable force. The US was even more dominant and also had nukes. The combination of these two forces was the largest military (even relative) force the world had ever seen. Only the UK was marginalized at that point, but still a player. |
In your words, "nope". I also forgot to mention another nation: Sweden. So that's five nations....anyway....Britain completely controlled the seas, Napoleon was massively outnumbered and he faced reprisals at the national and local levels in other countries. Furthermore, the quality of German troops was comparably better towards the latter years of WWII than the French troops in 1813-1815 (the "Marie-Louises").
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
And the US completley controlled the air AND the seas. |
Yea but American non-land dominance was equivalent to that of Britain's after Trafalgar. I say that the Allies of 1813-1815 are stronger not because they actually are, but because Napoleon was WAY weaker. The Russian campaign in 1812 cut deeply in his ranks and he was forced to replace seasoned veterans who had mastered the then-legendary French infantry tactics with conscripts. So in relative terms, Napoleon was much weaker than Hitler by the end points and thus COMPARABLY the Allies could exert greater influence on him, this making them stronger than the Allies in World War II.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Hitler never outright put an end to the war.
|
From 1934- 1938? There was no war, yet Hitler gained great gobs of territory, he managed to obtain treaties, that served his interests. So yes, he was able to war with impunity.
And even from 1939-1940, is it right to say that he really had a war on after the fall of France? Britain could not touch him, and almost signed an armistice with Hitler.
So I don't think it's really correct to say that he started a war he couldn't finish until Barbarossa, and that he really didn't deserve to fight the US, seeing that was due to the actions of his ally. Hitler can't really be blamed for drawing them into the war.
quote:
But Hitler never outright gained permanent peace. Napoleon actually did.
|
When did Napoleon gain actual permanent peace, rather than strategic treaties?
quote:
As far as I'm aware Napoleon concocted the plans for the campaigns completely on his own. Thus he deserves a greater share of respect.
|
True, but that doesn't mean that Hitler did not count as a conqueror. Look at his contemporaries. They considered him a conqueror, who was a grave menace to the peace of the world, and not his generals.
Sure his generals may have came up with the plans, but Hitler provided the drive, and the goals, to which his generals strived.
quote:
Because you're constructing it with the implication that America was always some sort of giant. We're talking 1814 here buddy
|
Yes, I understand that fully. And the truth is the combined might of the USSR, Britain and the United States in 1942 was far stronger than Britain and Russia in 1814.
Therefore, in order to compare Hitler with Napoleon, one has to acknowledge this fact, since this is what it took to knock him down.
quote:
Comparably, Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia in 1813-1815 were stronger than the three you mentioned.
|
That's a very questionable statement, given that Napoleon smashed both Austria and Prussia, whereas the coalition comprised primarily of Britian and Russia, after the defeat of Austria and Prussia.
Secondly, just compare the might of Britain and the USSR alone in 1942 compared with Britain and Russia in 1815.
Britain was stronger in 1942, with the acquisition of colonies in Africa, in Eqypt and South Africa.
Plus in 1942, you have the aid of Canada, and Australia, not available to any considerable means in 1815.
On the Russian side, the Russians had considerable development in both the Caucasus, and in Siberia and the Urals, plus a transcontinental railroad, none of which were available in 1815,
So the comparable might of the USSR and Britain alone in 1942 was greater than that of Britain and Russia in 1815, without even bringing the Americans into the picture.
If you include the Americans, who were needed to take down Hitler, then it is just no contest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberCryxic
Treaty of Westphalia modern nationalism???? Umm no buddy....Napoleon is what made possible something which he didn't want to: he inflamed people's passions for their own nations..... |
He didn't with the Dutch, the English, the Scots, The Irish, the Americans, the Spanish, the French, the Russians, the Poles, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns, the Greeks....
What you have done in crediting Napoleon with so much is ignore what, for want of a better phrase, would be described as 'ethnic nationalism', the idea that nationality resides in a shared language, culture or perceived ethnicity (or as per Westphalia, adherence to a particular religion).
The assertion of an avowedly English identity began not only with the foundation of an Anglican English church, but also with its exclusion from continental landholdings with the loss of Calais in the reign of Mary Tudor, and subsequently the growth of English as a language and literature accelerated by the replacement of Latin in church usage and the explosion of printed material in English in the reign of Elizabeth I.
In the works of writers in that reign you can also see some who want a more 'English' English language, with less reliance on loanwords from foreign languages, such as Greek and Latin and Italian and French- similarly the formal foundation of the Academie Francaise in the 17th Century under the aegis of Cardinal Richelieu can also be seen as major step to forming an explicit 'northern' French identity (rather than say a Provencal, Mediterranean French identity which shared culture with parts of Spain and northern Italy).
Richelieu has been described as the father of French nationalism- although a Catholic Cardinal, he saw no difficulty in opposing the Pope, or fighting Catholic countries by allying with Protestant powers, as long as it served the interest of the French state.
Similarly, in his domestic policies, he broke the power of both the French Portestant Huguenots, and the French Catholic devots nobles, who detested his alliance with Protestants- in his writings you can see the concepts of 'modern' nationalism:
"Harshness towards individuals who flout the laws and commands of the state is for the public good; no greater crime against the public interest is possible than to show leniency to those who violate it."
"I have never had any [enemies], other than those of the state."
Cardinal Richelieu
Peoples such as the Finns already had a 'national' saga- the Kalevala, and Poland although dismembered not long before Napoleon came to power, could hardly be said to have relied on him to spur it towards an idea of nationhood.
You are giving too little credit to perceptions of national/racial identity that existed before Napoleon was even thought of- the German Volk concept was expressed explicitly by Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18th Century, with an emphasis on shared culture (music, art , literature, sagas, folktales) binding a people together, but even before this, the idea of a German nation or identity was not unknown.
In any case, nationalism as a concept is expressed in several different ways- you might have a civic nationalism for instance, rather than an 'ethnic' nationalism, so that regardless of one's perceived ethnic origin, one would be an American, or a British subject (as seen when Great Britain relied on gunboat diplomacy to defend the rights of Don Pacifico
in Greece)
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/t...ech/foreign.htm
under the protection of the American or British state.
In other instances, such as Portugal wresting its freedom from Spain, or Czech/Bohemian assertion of a unique identity separate from Austro-Hungarian or German cultural domination, the course of the struggle is intimately linked with religion and culture and language, in Czechoslovakia's case from the Hussite struggles to the Slav Congress of 1848, and the aftermath of WWI and certainly predates Napoleon.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
So you've just made the case that Napolean was in a weak state, and not worthy of mentioning among the greats.
Alexander, on the other hand, OWNED everyone he came into contact with, didn't have to regroup, AND, he personally did alot of fighting. That is like a Blitzkrieg on steroids.
The demise of Persia is exaggerated. |
Now when you say "weak state" are you talking about his personal health or that of his army? Haha....just sort of a rhetorical question....but his health did decline in the latter campaigns (he had to sit out the Battle of Borodino because he had bladder problems and a bad cold). Now I made the point that Napoleon was in a weak state after Russia. Well no duh......an army of 600,000 was evaporated in a few months. Only 95,000 soldiers recrossed into Poland alive. He had to raise virtually an entire separate army. This certainly doesn't preclude Napoleon from being 'among the greats'. He IS the greatest.....most historians will tell you so themselves. The debacle in Russia set the stage up for his subsequent failures (even though it is instructive to keep in mind that although Napoleon lost the remaining campaigns he never stopped winning battles....even in the Waterloo campaign the French won 3 battles and lost one, unfortunately for the them the one that mattered...but go back one year before that and you have the defensive campaign of 1814....some observers have referred to this as Napoleon's greatest campaign ever...he ultimately lost, mostly through deception and weak will, but his rapid succession of triumphs in February frightened the Allies dramatically). I want to stress on the other hand that Alexander faced a largely incompetent opponent with an empire on the verge of political collapse. I also want to stress that I am not belittling Alexander's achievements, that would be ludicrous considering the odds in numbers. But high numbers will lead to nothing if the leaders are total baffoons. In the T'umu campaign of 1449, 20,000 Mongols wiped out a Ming army of 500,000 and captured the Emperor. Surely that's greater than Alexander's achievements? Yet it does not go down in history as such because the commanders of the losing sides were highly incompetent; Darius was no warrior. Napoleon's battlefield opponents were much closer in skill to him, yet he managed to defeat them throughout his entire life. I mean THROUGHOUT....down to the very end, where he beat Blucher and inflicted 16,000 casulaties on the Prussians at Ligny (1815). In fact, Blucher has the best head-to-head rating against Napoleon, out of all generals of the time that faced the Little Corsican. His record is 2 wins, 0 draws, and 4 losses. You touting the fact that Alexander "personally did a lot of fighting" is ridiculous because commanders in ancient times (mostly before Scipio and Hannibal) were known for personally leading charges, so this is nothing special. That's what they did. And nonetheless it is a moot point since Napoleon also took many physical risks once in individual command (1796 and after). But before that, he led the charges that captured Toulon's Fort Equilette. He received a bayonet wound to the leg and his courage inspired the men. After that he continued to take physical risks, having some 10 to 18 horses shot under him during the wars he fought. Wellington said Napoleon's presence on the field was equal to "40,000 men". He encouraged troops forward and they always felt assured when he was nearby....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
From 1934- 1938? There was no war, yet Hitler gained great gobs of territory, he managed to obtain treaties, that served his interests. So yes, he was able to war with impunity.
And even from 1939-1940, is it right to say that he really had a war on after the fall of France? Britain could not touch him, and almost signed an armistice with Hitler.
So I don't think it's really correct to say that he started a war he couldn't finish until Barbarossa, and that he really didn't deserve to fight the US, seeing that was due to the actions of his ally. Hitler can't really be blamed for drawing them into the war.
When did Napoleon gain actual permanent peace, rather than strategic treaties?
True, but that doesn't mean that Hitler did not count as a conqueror. Look at his contemporaries. They considered him a conqueror, who was a grave menace to the peace of the world, and not his generals.
Sure his generals may have came up with the plans, but Hitler provided the drive, and the goals, to which his generals strived.
Yes, I understand that fully. And the truth is the combined might of the USSR, Britain and the United States in 1942 was far stronger than Britain and Russia in 1814.
Therefore, in order to compare Hitler with Napoleon, one has to acknowledge this fact, since this is what it took to knock him down.
That's a very questionable statement, given that Napoleon smashed both Austria and Prussia, whereas the coalition comprised primarily of Britian and Russia, after the defeat of Austria and Prussia.
Secondly, just compare the might of Britain and the USSR alone in 1942 compared with Britain and Russia in 1815.
Britain was stronger in 1942, with the acquisition of colonies in Africa, in Eqypt and South Africa.
Plus in 1942, you have the aid of Canada, and Australia, not available to any considerable means in 1815.
On the Russian side, the Russians had considerable development in both the Caucasus, and in Siberia and the Urals, plus a transcontinental railroad, none of which were available in 1815,
So the comparable might of the USSR and Britain alone in 1942 was greater than that of Britain and Russia in 1815, without even bringing the Americans into the picture.
If you include the Americans, who were needed to take down Hitler, then it is just no contest. |
Hitler's early attempts at gobbling up Europe were not in war-like nature. Had it been, his armies would've been absolutely destroyed. You can say he moved with political impunity, but he did not 'war' with impunity. Anyway you're detracting us from the essence of the debate, that being did Hitler actually end World War II. You seem to have a penchant for avoiding this question with repetition. Let me state again to the aid of your poorly nourished mind: he never outright ended the war. Now do you get that? Do you 'comprende'? With regards to this very specific topic, I don't want bs. I want actuality. He never ended the war like Napoleon ended conflict with the Second Coalition. I was mistaken in saying "permanent peace", that just came out wrong; it wasn't what I meant. I simply meant what I'd written before, that for a time he actually brought the conflict to an end. In March 1802 all of Europe was at peace for the first time in a decade. AND EVEN AFTER the resumption of conflict in 1805, he brought peace for a time on the continent, defeating Austrian, Russian, and Prussian armies. See? He could enjoy his accomplishments...he could look out across Europe and say "holy ****, I actually did it". Hitler worried all along.....isn't there that famous story of Molotov and Ribentropp meeting in Berlin while British bombers were flying overhead, Ribentropp saying "Britain is defeated", and Molotov coldly asking, "if that is so, whose bombs are those falling?"....hehe...
"So I don't think it's really correct to say that he started a war he couldn't finish until Barbarossa, and that he really didn't deserve to fight the US, seeing that was due to the actions of his ally. Hitler can't really be blamed for drawing them into the war." - I don't know even wtf the first part of the first sentence means. I'm not saying that....you're turning this into something necessarily over-complicated to save Hitler's laurels as a great commander (which he wasn't).....the question at hand is whether he definitively ended World War II. I don't want your god damn talking points or your wry commentary....merely an acknowledgment of a palpable fact....
"When did Napoleon gain actual permanent peace, rather than strategic treaties?" - It's called Tilsit; maybe you should read up on it....
"True, but that doesn't mean that Hitler did not count as a conqueror. Look at his contemporaries. They considered him a conqueror, who was a grave menace to the peace of the world, and not his generals.
Sure his generals may have came up with the plans, but Hitler provided the drive, and the goals, to which his generals strived." - Hitler's abilities as a military commander have seriously been called into doubt after the disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union. He blundered badly in weakening the center and shifting 4th Panzer Corps in the Caucasus Campaign. There were also plenty of other mistakes....I didn't want it to come to this....but....isn't it true that Hitler and some of his associates began to rely on the occult to actually predict their military future after they started losing??? I've seen several shows about that on the History Channel....that's a dagger right at the heart of your theory that Hitler was a great commander. I wouldn't even put him at top 40, and maybe top 50.
Britain was comparatively much weaker in the 1940's then she was in the early 19th century. Combine Nelson's genius with improving naval trends and you have the recipe for British domination of the seas. Like I said, at the time I'm analyzing, 1813-15, Napoleon was significantly weaker than Hitler's Germany in say 1944-45. Why? Because his army was COMPLETELY broken. Hitler's army suffered massive losses which had to be made up with new recruits, but never did the Germans break in the colossal scale that Napoleon's invasion of Russia did. Nappy was virtually armyless after Russia. We all know about the diabolical efficiency of the German army RIGHT UP till the end. It was never as badly pummeled as the French in 1812. Furthermore, the disturbing pattern was one of decreased Napoleonic fortunes and upbeat Allied assessments as forces started pouring in for the German campaign of 1813. Napoleon came out and Bautzen and Lutzen, but the victories were insignificant. Yet the Allies signed a 10-week armistice anyway (which they prolonged later). The campaign opened up with a classic Napoleonic victory at Dresden (40,000 Allied casualties versus 10,000 French....but it didn't matter because Allied numbers were so high they could afford heavy losses) but after losing to him for over a decade they finally realized how to play the game....they had a good strategy, better numbers....all in all it equals Leipizig. Relatively (when Napoleon's and Hitler's strengths are considered) they were stronger than the Allies of World War II...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
This idea that Napoleon stimulated nationalism is greatly exagerated. He was an imperialist and a French chauvinist.
Modern nationalism in Europe is traced more to the revolutions of 1848, some 30 years after Napoleon's fall. |
Umm I would love it if you get me reputable sources for that one. Modern nationalism started in the French Revolution, firstly with France, then it spread to other countries. It's one of the most obvious things ever. It affected everything after....the Spanish revolt of 1823 (which, very ironically, the French put down themselves), the 1830 and the 1848 revolutions etc....in fact, MODERN HISTORY started with the French Revolution, and with Napoleon the first signs of the modern state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
obvious things are your forte |
Oh are we adopting a defeatist attitude now and retreating with half-assed comments???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
He didn't with the Dutch, the English, the Scots, The Irish, the Americans, the Spanish, the French, the Russians, the Poles, the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns, the Greeks....
What you have done in crediting Napoleon with so much is ignore what, for want of a better phrase, would be described as 'ethnic nationalism', the idea that nationality resides in a shared language, culture or perceived ethnicity (or as per Westphalia, adherence to a particular religion).
The assertion of an avowedly English identity began not only with the foundation of an Anglican English church, but also with its exclusion from continental landholdings with the loss of Calais in the reign of Mary Tudor, and subsequently the growth of English as a language and literature accelerated by the replacement of Latin in church usage and the explosion of printed material in English in the reign of Elizabeth I.
In the works of writers in that reign you can also see some who want a more 'English' English language, with less reliance on loanwords from foreign languages, such as Greek and Latin and Italian and French- similarly the formal foundation of the Academie Francaise in the 17th Century under the aegis of Cardinal Richelieu can also be seen as major step to forming an explicit 'northern' French identity (rather than say a Provencal, Mediterranean French identity which shared culture with parts of Spain and northern Italy).
Richelieu has been described as the father of French nationalism- although a Catholic Cardinal, he saw no difficulty in opposing the Pope, or fighting Catholic countries by allying with Protestant powers, as long as it served the interest of the French state.
Similarly, in his domestic policies, he broke the power of both the French Portestant Huguenots, and the French Catholic devots nobles, who detested his alliance with Protestants- in his writings you can see the concepts of 'modern' nationalism:
"Harshness towards individuals who flout the laws and commands of the state is for the public good; no greater crime against the public interest is possible than to show leniency to those who violate it."
"I have never had any [enemies], other than those of the state."
Cardinal Richelieu
Peoples such as the Finns already had a 'national' saga- the Kalevala, and Poland although dismembered not long before Napoleon came to power, could hardly be said to have relied on him to spur it towards an idea of nationhood.
You are giving too little credit to perceptions of national/racial identity that existed before Napoleon was even thought of- the German Volk concept was expressed explicitly by Johann Gottfried Herder in the 18th Century, with an emphasis on shared culture (music, art , literature, sagas, folktales) binding a people together, but even before this, the idea of a German nation or identity was not unknown.
In any case, nationalism as a concept is expressed in several different ways- you might have a civic nationalism for instance, rather than an 'ethnic' nationalism, so that regardless of one's perceived ethnic origin, one would be an American, or a British subject (as seen when Great Britain relied on gunboat diplomacy to defend the rights of Don Pacifico
in Greece)
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/t...ech/foreign.htm
under the protection of the American or British state.
In other instances, such as Portugal wresting its freedom from Spain, or Czech/Bohemian assertion of a unique identity separate from Austro-Hungarian or German cultural domination, the course of the struggle is intimately linked with religion and culture and language, in Czechoslovakia's case from the Hussite struggles to the Slav Congress of 1848, and the aftermath of WWI and certainly predates Napoleon. |
Molly are you aware that Napoleon formed an Irish Foreign Legion for his army??? Yep....and believe it or not, almost ALL of those groups were afflicted by the French Revolution in some way that caused them to rise up in arms. Remember the Belgian revolt of 1830 that led to independence from Holland? Because of the French Revolution....yep....like I said most of the things in the 19th century can be traced back to the French Revolution. Regardless I will keep my reply short because I've understood the meat of your topic. You are saying I am not paying much attention to the identity these groups that later rose up fostered in years before Napoleon. And that is a very legitimate and correct accusation. I didn't pay attention to it much. But only because that was not my intention. When I say, "the French Revolution saw the founding of MODERN nationalism" (keep the word 'modern' in mind) I mean that it exploded all those sentiments that had been building up in the previous century/centuries. These common identities were finally let out of a cannonball by the French Revolution; Napoleon was the spark. He was the catharcist. No the identifications of these groups did not become formed under Napoleon, in that characterization you are absolutely correct and there is no reason for me to argue against it, but their common anger, frustration, and desires were set to action by what Napoleon did.....that is what I was saying. I hope this time I was a bit more clearer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
What is your fascination with this little dwarf anyway, he is obviously overshadowed by the homosexual Greek and the pimping Mongol warlord.... |
Mind you he was 5'6''....that was average height back then.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberCryxic
Molly are you aware that Napoleon formed an Irish Foreign Legion for his army???
When I say, "the French Revolution saw the founding of MODERN nationalism" (keep the word 'modern' in mind) I mean that it exploded all those sentiments that had been building up in the previous century/centuries.
These common identities were finally let out of a cannonball by the French Revolution; Napoleon was the spark. ....but their common anger, frustration, and desires were set to action by what Napoleon did.....that is what I was saying. I hope this time I was a bit more clearer. |
Yes, I am aware of the role the Wild Geese played in European armies- are you equally aware of the Irish Marshals in the Austrian and Spanish and Russian armies?
Napoleon's Irish Brigade weren't by any means France's first such- at the Battle of Fontenoy an Irish force helped defeat the British, in the reign of Louis XV, as they had earlier helped defeat the Austrians in Louis XIV's reign at the Battle of Cremona.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Spa...12/brigade.html
In any case, Napoleon was simply taking advantage of an already existing phenomenon, that dated back to (in part) Norman settlement of the Pale of Dublin, and more properly, the three great settlements or plantations of the Jacobean (James I) and Cromwellian eras, and the reign of William III.
An explicitly indpendent nationalist Catholic and Irish identity was fostered in opposition to a Protestant Irish one seen as being subservient or allied to the English crown, although by the latter part of the 18th Century, Protestants open to the philosophical ideas of the Enlightenmnent were also backing the cause of Irish independence.
Now given that the American Revolution predated the French one, and that the style of nationalism fostered by the American Revolution differs to a great degree from the French one, you cannot assume that the French Revolution was responsible for agitation for an Irish Revolution, for instance, certainly not given the role of Irish Catholics in the American War of Independence (at least one of whom signed the Declaration of Independence).
The Portuguese and Dutch were by the time of the Treaty of Westphalia nations with individual cultures which had asserted themselves against more powerful entities which had sought to absorb or subdue them within a pan-European state. Portugal reasserted its independence from Spain in 1680, well before the French Revolution or Napoleon.
Now if by modern state, you mean a centralized, or centralizing power with a bureaucracy, an intelligence service, a civil service, a national entity that encourages an inhabitant's identification with it, then you already have this in several states in the 17th Century.
Certainly, with the likes of Axel Oxenstierna in Sweden (and the de la Gardies to a certain extent too) Strafford in Great Britain, the Count Duke Olivares in Spain and Richelieu/Mazarin and the likes of Colbert in France you have servants of the Crown/state who subordinate personal gain/private religion to a greater 'national' duty.
From the two statements of Richelieu's which I quoted, you can see quite clearly how he thinks of France-
as a national unified entity, not separated into religious or noble factions, and a power which suppresses any assertions of private or exclusive privilege on the part of aristocrats or religious parties against the interest of the state.
Similarly in Great Britain under Cromwell, there was a more extreme conception of the nation as a godly construct, because due to the nature of his Protestant beliefs he believed he was creating God's kingdom on earth (or at least the preconditions for its establishment).
Even then, he was merely building on decades of English Puritan sentiments and English culture which had asserted a distinct national culture.
A Belgian revolt from the Kingdom of the Netherlands (an entity created by Napoleon) is hardly evidence of Napoleon fostering national identity on behalf of the Dutch. One might at least give credit to the opera which was being performed and is said to have inspired it.
'In August 1830, stirred by a performance of Auber's' La Muette de Portici' at the Brussels opera house La Monnaie, the Belgian Revolution broke out, and the country wrested its independence from the Dutch, aided by French intellectuals and French armed forces. The real political forces behind this were the strong resistance from the Catholic clergy against the protestant Dutch king, joined by the equally strong resistance from the liberals, opposing the royal authoritarianism. '
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclo...tory-of-Belgium
You have yet to show how Napoleon helped the Poles, Irish, Swedes, Finns, Greeks, Americans, Spanish, Portuguese, Danes, Scots or Russians assert their nationhood, because he didn't (other than creating the short lived Duchy of Warsaw, an obvious counterbalance/irritant for the Enlightened Despotisms of Prussia, Russia and Austria).
If you were asserting however, that Napoleon's alienation of the Prussians and his lack of understanding in the Iberian theatre of war helped promote a national identification in opposition to Napoleon, you'd be correct.
I would say you would be on much firmer ground by claiming that through entities such as the Confederation of the Rhine, the various Italian republics and kingdoms he set up, and the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire he was at least partly inspirational for Italian Unification
and a growth in German moves towards unification (although as we've already seen, Herder was promoting this before the French Revolution).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:36
|
|
Attila and Mohammed are so over-shadowed by the others... Mohammed really doesn't deserve to be on here as in his life, the muslims only consolidated Arabia. It was just in the 40 years (very short time period considering we're talking about the 7th century) after his death that the muslims established one of the largest empires in history, from Spain to northern India...
the muslims, alongside the mongols and alexander, deserve recognition for forming the largest, longest-lasting, empires in incredibly short spans of time against enemies that were far superior to them. Napoleon, Hitler, and Caesar did not suffer as acute disadvantages as the muslims, mongols, and macedonians did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
|
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
He never ended the war like Napoleon ended conflict with the Second Coalition. I was mistaken in saying "permanent peace", that just came out wrong; it wasn't what I meant.
|
Then you concede my point. How different is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the Peace of Amiens?
quote:
Hitler's abilities as a military commander have seriously been called into doubt after the disastrous invasion of the Soviet Union. He blundered badly in weakening the center and shifting 4th Panzer Corps in the Caucasus Campaign. There were also plenty of other mistakes.
|
And Napoleon is not without his own?
Sending Marshal Ney to a suicidal charge against the English squares, rather than leaving his artillery, to chew at the British?
Both of them were about as successful with the invasion of Russia, so if Hitler's unsuccessful attempt casts doubts as to his military prowess, then so should Napoleon's unsuccessful attempt.
quote:
Britain was comparatively much weaker in the 1940's then she was in the early 19th century. Combine Nelson's genius with improving naval trends and you have the recipe for British domination of the seas.
|
Britain had a smaller navy than the Dutch at the beginning of the century, and had a smaller navy than the combined Spanish and French fleets at Trafalgar. Much of their successes and domination of the seas did not come until after the defeat of Napoleon at Trafalgar, and their consolidation over the rest of the 19th Century.
Now, while the British did not have as much naval supremacy in the second world war, they still were able to bottle up the Germans, and produce enough ships to overcome damage through submarine warfare. Hitler never had any domination of the seas, hence his determination to establish Lebensraum over the Ukraine so that he could feed the Reich.
So in both cases, Britain dominated the seas, at least for surface fleet. I don't see that much of a difference between the situation of the British in 1815, and that of Britain in 1940.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Also you have to consider the defeat and conquest of the rest of Normandy because this forced the Norman lords to decide between becoming vassals of France or of England.
The Norman lords that stayed in England tended to have less of a continental outlook than the ones that chose to become vassals of France. Given that the parliaments in England comprised of the Lords, this loss of the continentalist lords would have a large effect on public policy. |
It might, but it wouldn't have anything to do with asserting a national English identity- I'm not quite sure what a 'continental outlook' is anyway- a view of France from a window in then English Calais? 
I'd say rather that the Welsh Tudors taking the English throne from an English Yorkist had to establish their credentials, and had to keep on establishing their credentials, given the popular uprisings against Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and even Elizabeth I.
Consider the anti-Yorkist propaganda of Sir Thomas More against Richard III, and of course Shakespeare's play of 'Richard III', only parts of a campaign of legitimization for the short-lived Tudor dynasty
After a fractious civil war (or conflict between noble factions) the country was little involved directly with foreign adventurism- Henry VIII's forays into mainland Europe aren't exactly the stuff of legend (except perhaps for the Field of the Cloth of Gold) and parsimonious Elizabeth preferred to subsidize foreign forces rather than send over costlier English armies.
The creation of a national, English church, with a liturgy in the vernacular, the translation of Old and New Testaments into English, and the conception and conviction that a language which served as the means of communication for perhaps only 5-7 millions in mainly one part of one offshore island could convey meaning as well as any other European language, all helped foster the growing sense of a national unity.
Even in Henry VIII's day, Cornish, for instance, was still being used in Cornwall, in everyday speech, and in productions of Cornish Mystery Plays, and Irish Gaelic, not English, was the main language of Ireland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Then you concede my point. How different is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact from the Peace of Amiens?
And Napoleon is not without his own?
Sending Marshal Ney to a suicidal charge against the English squares, rather than leaving his artillery, to chew at the British?
Both of them were about as successful with the invasion of Russia, so if Hitler's unsuccessful attempt casts doubts as to his military prowess, then so should Napoleon's unsuccessful attempt.
Britain had a smaller navy than the Dutch at the beginning of the century, and had a smaller navy than the combined Spanish and French fleets at Trafalgar. Much of their successes and domination of the seas did not come until after the defeat of Napoleon at Trafalgar, and their consolidation over the rest of the 19th Century.
Now, while the British did not have as much naval supremacy in the second world war, they still were able to bottle up the Germans, and produce enough ships to overcome damage through submarine warfare. Hitler never had any domination of the seas, hence his determination to establish Lebensraum over the Ukraine so that he could feed the Reich.
So in both cases, Britain dominated the seas, at least for surface fleet. I don't see that much of a difference between the situation of the British in 1815, and that of Britain in 1940. |
The Peace of Amiens brought peace to ALL of Europe. Last I recall, the M-R pact never did that. And later on Napoleon had at least some breathing space to enjoy his triumphs. Hitler was perennially tied down in a losing effort. An important correction on Ney's charges: injured British soldiers were escorted out via the Brussels-Charleroi road and when Ney saw these roadcoats he thought the British were retreating and he charged like hell, only to find the British arrayed in squares. Napoleon was actually livid by this move. French artillery was largely unsuccessful because the British were positioned behind a crest and couldn't be clearly seen. And Hitler was WAY more successful with the invasion of Russia. Napoleon fumbled badly; Hitler pwned the Russians like no other, the Reds only surviving because of those well-equipped Siberian divisions which had been freed by Japan's concession not to attack. But I am not interested in isolated incidents. Patterns are more important. Hitler never showed Napoleon's genius when in a bind. Once he started losing, he STARTED losing. Man....they got owned. But that requires a lot more deep analysis which for lack of time I won't go into.......the statement on the navies proves nothing about British strength. In the 1880s Chile had a larger navy than America but they would've gotten raped in the event of war....Britain would've dismantled Holland...anyway, you are right about the British domination of the seas. It started in the 1790s with the use of innovative tactics which finally uberowned the Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar....they were very superior to their enemies....much more so than in World War II....your last paragraph is a joke...I think you made a mistake unknowingly...cuz 1940 is a bad year to pick. Ya know....'the Blitz'....By 1815 Britain was much more comfortable about her security than she was in 1940....Molly unfortunately with the start of school I don't have that much time so I can't quite respond to your post just now, but I will during the weekend perhaps. I do want to reiterate that concentrating on 'national identities' gets us nowhere because then I can easily prove that nationalism started during the Hundred Years War...and maybe even during the Capetians of France, who consolidated royal authority...how would you like that? Your analysis is aimed at the wrong thing, with all due respect. Try looking up 'modern nationalism' and the French Revolution will be your crucible.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
Yo Molly, here you go: http://www.bartleby.com/65/na/natlism.html ....."Nationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon, probably born with the French Revolution..."..."In its first powerful manifestation in the French Revolution, nationalism carried with it the notion of popular sovereignty, from which some have inferred that nationalism can occur only in democratic nations"... "Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history"..."It was in the 19th cent. that nationalism became a widespread and powerful force. During this time nationalism expressed itself in many areas as a drive for national unification or independence. The spirit of nationalism took an especially strong hold in Germany, where thinkers such as Johann Gottfried von Herder and Johann Gottlieb Fichte had developed the idea of Volk. However, the nationalism that inspired the German people to rise against the empire of Napoleon I was conservative, tradition-bound, and narrow rather than liberal, progressive, and universal"...like I said dude, you're concentrating on the wrong side of the coin. I'm telling you to look at heads and you're looking at tails.....your apology is accepted.
Last edited by UberCryxic on 10-09-2004 at 05:34
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberCryxic
"Nationalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon, probably born with the French Revolution..."..."
"Although nationalism is unique to the modern world, some of its elements can be traced throughout history"...
like I said dude, you're concentrating on the wrong side of the coin. I'm telling you to look at heads and you're looking at tails.....your apology is accepted. |
Well, thanks, but you won't be getting one.
Notic ethat all important 'probably'.....
You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is only one kind of nationalism, and that one person's opinion is holy writ.
There isn't, and it ain't.
So far you haven't shown out of the many examples I gave, how Napoleon 'inspired' or produced English, American, Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish, Finnish, Russian or Dutch 'nationalism'.
You don't seem to appreciate, for instance, that the kind of nationalism expressed in France during the French Revolution and after may differ greatly from the nationalism found in England during the Tudor dynasties and the Cromwellian Interregnum.
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/geog/study/cou...ation/week7.pdf
The Treaty of Westphalia and 'nationalism'.
and again:
'The origins of modern states can be traced to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which saw the disintegration of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. This era witnessed a polarization of European powers and the emergence of centralized political and legal administrations that laid the foundations of England, France, Spanish, Swedish, Russia, Hungary and the Holland territories. '
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1586
and again:
'Tony Blair wants "rogue" states to be stripped of the protection afforded by the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. That forbade intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and decreed they couldn't be attacked unless they posed a direct threat to the country, or a treaty partner of the country, that went to war with them. '
http://www.20six.co.uk/weblogEntry/1cppivbz7mpfb
and again:
'The problem with Scruton's and Ruthven's cultural determinism is its teleology. In fact, Western secularism, in the sense of de jure authority, is a more recent innovation than the Bible would suggest. It was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that introduced the principles of territorial sovereignty, established the independence of states and gave impetus to notions of raison d'etat, thereby overthrowing forever the medievalist notion of a universal religious authority acting as final arbiter of Christendom. Prior to Westphalia, secularism only existed as de facto power, as Rome was challenged by the divine right of kings. The reason Scruton does not delve into this basic history is because he does not wish to concede the possibility of historical change taking precedence over cultural forms, rather than culture determining history. '
http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2003-02/islamism.htm
and finally:
'
.... the nation state is a highly specific historical form.
It developed between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe. The rise of the modern state not only changed the territorial landscape of Europe: it also transformed our imaginative landscapes.
Since the seventeenth century, we have come to see political power as inherently territorial.
Politics takes place within the state as the exclusive governor of a definite territory. We also identify political territory with social space, perceiving countries as ‘state-societies’.
....sovereign territorial states reinvented themselves as nation states. Rulers and ruled became alike, and together they shared a distinct culture and institutions defined at least in part in opposition to those of other nations.
Such differences were shaped in and by the conflict of states that has been inherent in the states system since its formation.'
http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/104hirst.htm
Conflicts such as the Reconquista in Spain- redefining Spanish as Catholic, non-Jewish and non-Moorish, and attempting to create a Spanish nation and identity, rather than sets of kingdoms and towns with their own exclusive privileges within the Iberian peninsula.
Such as the Eighty Years' War between the United Provinces and Spain, creating a mercantilist tolerant Protestant Dutch society.
Such as the triumph of the Tudors at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and the creation of a militant Protestant English national identity in the English Civil Wars.
Such as the creation of a federal republican democratic state in opposition to a constitutional monarchy, in the United States.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
Well, thanks, but you won't be getting one.
Notic ethat all important 'probably'.....
You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is only one kind of nationalism, and that one person's opinion is holy writ.
There isn't, and it ain't.
So far you haven't shown out of the many examples I gave, how Napoleon 'inspired' or produced English, American, Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish, Finnish, Russian or Dutch 'nationalism'.
You don't seem to appreciate, for instance, that the kind of nationalism expressed in France during the French Revolution and after may differ greatly from the nationalism found in England during the Tudor dynasties and the Cromwellian Interregnum.
http://www.bbk.ac.uk/geog/study/cou...ation/week7.pdf
The Treaty of Westphalia and 'nationalism'.
and again:
'The origins of modern states can be traced to the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which saw the disintegration of the medieval Holy Roman Empire. This era witnessed a polarization of European powers and the emergence of centralized political and legal administrations that laid the foundations of England, France, Spanish, Swedish, Russia, Hungary and the Holland territories. '
http://www.kurdishmedia.com/reports.asp?id=1586
and again:
'Tony Blair wants "rogue" states to be stripped of the protection afforded by the terms of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. That forbade intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and decreed they couldn't be attacked unless they posed a direct threat to the country, or a treaty partner of the country, that went to war with them. '
http://www.20six.co.uk/weblogEntry/1cppivbz7mpfb
and again:
'The problem with Scruton's and Ruthven's cultural determinism is its teleology. In fact, Western secularism, in the sense of de jure authority, is a more recent innovation than the Bible would suggest. It was the 1648 Peace of Westphalia that introduced the principles of territorial sovereignty, established the independence of states and gave impetus to notions of raison d'etat, thereby overthrowing forever the medievalist notion of a universal religious authority acting as final arbiter of Christendom. Prior to Westphalia, secularism only existed as de facto power, as Rome was challenged by the divine right of kings. The reason Scruton does not delve into this basic history is because he does not wish to concede the possibility of historical change taking precedence over cultural forms, rather than culture determining history. '
http://www.culturewars.org.uk/2003-02/islamism.htm
and finally:
'
.... the nation state is a highly specific historical form.
It developed between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries in Europe. The rise of the modern state not only changed the territorial landscape of Europe: it also transformed our imaginative landscapes.
Since the seventeenth century, we have come to see political power as inherently territorial.
Politics takes place within the state as the exclusive governor of a definite territory. We also identify political territory with social space, perceiving countries as ‘state-societies’.
....sovereign territorial states reinvented themselves as nation states. Rulers and ruled became alike, and together they shared a distinct culture and institutions defined at least in part in opposition to those of other nations.
Such differences were shaped in and by the conflict of states that has been inherent in the states system since its formation.'
http://www.theglobalsite.ac.uk/press/104hirst.htm
Conflicts such as the Reconquista in Spain- redefining Spanish as Catholic, non-Jewish and non-Moorish, and attempting to create a Spanish nation and identity, rather than sets of kingdoms and towns with their own exclusive privileges within the Iberian peninsula.
Such as the Eighty Years' War between the United Provinces and Spain, creating a mercantilist tolerant Protestant Dutch society.
Such as the triumph of the Tudors at the end of the Wars of the Roses, and the creation of a militant Protestant English national identity in the English Civil Wars.
Such as the creation of a federal republican democratic state in opposition to a constitutional monarchy, in the United States. |
"You seem to be labouring under the impression that there is only one kind of nationalism, and that one person's opinion is holy writ." - "One person's opinion"....you know how ridiculous you sound? Did you even see the link? It was the Columbia Encyclopedia. But if you want more: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/modsbook17.html. "Nationalism was the most successful political force of the 19th century. It emerged from two main sources: the Romantic exaltation of "feeling" and "identity" [see Herder above all on this] and the Liberal requirement that a legitimate state be based on a "people" rather than, for example, a dynasty, God, or imperial domination. Both Romantic "identity nationalism" and Liberal "civic nationalism" were essentially middle class movements. There were two main ways of exemplification: the French method of "inclusion" - essentially that anyone who accepted loyalty to the civil French state was a "citizen". In practice this meant the enforcement of a considerable degree of uniformity, for instance the destruction of regional languages. The US can be seen to have, eventually, adopted this ideal of civic inclusive nationalism. The German method, required by political circumstances, was todefine the "nation" in ethnic terms. Ethnicity in practice came down to speaking German and (perhaps) having a German name. For the largely German-speaking Slavic middle classes of Prague, Agram etc. who took up the nationalist ideal, the ethnic aspect became even more important than it had been for the Germans. It is debateable whether, in practice, all nationalisms ended up as Chauvinistic and aggressive, but the very nature of nationalism requires that boundaries be drawn. Unless these boundaries are purely civic, successful nationalism, in many cases produced a situation in which substantial groups of outsiders were left within "nation-states"."
Hell, I could go on giving you links and sources pointing to the French Revolution being the crucible of nationalism until I had a book.
"So far you haven't shown out of the many examples I gave, how Napoleon 'inspired' or produced English, American, Spanish, Portuguese, Scottish, Finnish, Russian or Dutch 'nationalism'." - aww you've given up on the Germans? I at least hoped you would've made one last foolhardy stand for them. Making the debate this categorical isn't really constructive, and because I "can't" prove it (not so much that as the fact that up to know I thought it was common knowledge that the French Revolution was the birthplace of nationalism...hence I feel no point in trying to a great effort). Now let's see, with Spain you had the revolution of 1823, which I've already mentioned. You had the Belgians, also influenced by the French. You had people all across Europe beginning to show discontent with the established powers. And I should also like to think Leo Tolstoy knows more about how the Russian spirit was affected by the French than you....you might've heard of it, it's a book called War and Peace. Read it sometimes.
"You don't seem to appreciate, for instance, that the kind of nationalism expressed in France during the French Revolution and after may differ greatly from the nationalism found in England during the Tudor dynasties and the Cromwellian Interregnum." - Here I think you've finally reached the 'armistice' line. I'm to the left and you to the right. I suspected all along that you were not talking about nationalism in the same sense I was. I don't consider your case with the Tudors useful because I mentioned earlier that many nations had undergone similar things in their history. To that end, we can tie 'nationalism' back to ancient times. The reason why I speak of "this" type of nationalism is because it was the most important in history. The French Revolution is the turning point in human history; by far the most important event to ever occur. The forces unleashed from it brought about the modern world. THAT type of nationalism never existed before. So thank you for drawing the distinction......we can debate endlessly about the Westphalia setting the stage for modern borders. The split of the Carolingian Empire in 840 layed the foundations for modern-day France and Germany, yet you don't mention it. Again I reiterate, with the vain hope your brain-dead existence will comprehend, that modern nationalism was born in the French Revolution.....any other suggestion would indicate you are not talking about the type of nationalism that shaked human history in the past two centuries.
Last edited by UberCryxic on 10-09-2004 at 07:07
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2004 02:20
|