If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" ....

If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

Joe D. -> If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 11:34:46 AM)
from Yahoo News: "It is the evening of June 18, 1815 and an exultant Napoleon Bonaparte surveys the field after winning the Battle of Waterloo, planning his next conquest. "Within years his empire will stretch as far as China, French will be spoken across the continent, and in the 20th century a global war between the great powers will be avoided because of the stability his rule created (emphasis mine). "These are some of the alternate histories that writers and experts have envisaged had Napoleon really been victorious in the battle 200 years ago, which actually ended in his humiliating defeat and exile at the hands of British and Prussian forces...." http://news.yahoo.com/french-speaking-europe-no-world-wars-napoleon-won-053256366.html

Alchenar -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 12:04:22 PM)
The article's just ridiculous and is puffing up what the historian himself calls 'pinch of salt' counter-history. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo then that gains him maybe a few weeks until the Russian and Austrian armies arrive in France and then he has nothing left to throw at him As for the relationship with Germany - that has way more to do with the effects of the Industrial revolution and the War of 1870 than anything to do with Waterloo.

Joe D. -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 12:32:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alchenar The article's just ridiculous and is puffing up what the historian himself calls 'pinch of salt' counter-history. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo then that gains him maybe a few weeks until the Russian and Austrian armies arrive in France and then he has nothing left to throw at him.... Historian Philippe Raxhon admitted that even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo -- actually Mont-Saint-Jean -- it wouldn't have been a "total victory," so one has to "imagine" if Bonaparte can eventually defeat the rest of Europe to realize his larger ambitions. Two too many "ifs'.

wings7 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:02:02 PM)
Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)] Patrick

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:16:55 PM)
Alchenar, you have said this article is ridiculous. I think that in using the word ridiculous you are being incredibly kind to this piece of garbage. In fairness the historian does say it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but then numerous other historians are quoted and as far as we know they are stating what they do with a straight face. quote: “Within years his empire will stretch as far as China” So after years of defeats, with the French nation assailed from all sides, he wins one battle in the north, and suddenly what? The Austrians, British, Prussians and Russians simply evaporate? quote: “Within years…..French will be spoken across the continent” Wow, that’s impressive….. quote: “and in the 20th century a global war between the great powers will be avoided because of the stability his rule created”. Slight problem here… its total sloblocks. Even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and entertain the idea that France in 1815 is in any position to defeat the Empires ranged against it, why does the author think the conquered peoples of Europe would be delighted to be under French rule and not rebel – like every other time a country has taken another by force? What so Napoleon’s rule is soooo enlightened that your average Prussian or Austrian will be gagging to dismiss their own culture, way of life, language and history and learn the wonders of the French language and embrace the impossibly perfect society that is Napoleonic Europe? Ooooohh I’m gagging with disappointment at missing out…. At least the Belgian historian does not appear to be living in cloud cuckoo land and recognises that the coalition ranged against Napoleon would actually do something about it. quote: "If Napoleon followed his original plans for 1810, he would have invaded Russia again and potentially extended his empire as far as China," Helmut Stubbe da Luz said Yes, that is right. And if Army Detachment Steiner had beaten the Soviets during the Battle for Berlin, Hitler would have extended his empire to China too…… Funny that the historian who said this, didn’t wonder why Napoleon couldn’t beat the Russians in 1812? Then the best bits… quote: “But what would an all-powerful Napoleon have been like to live under?” "The dictatorship that Napoleon exported to the countries under his domination was a regression compared to the progress of the French Revolution, but it wasn't bad for his new subjects in Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain," he said. He cited the "equality of rights for religious minorities and rural populations, the right to vote for men, a new judicial system and an expanded economic area". Well we all like living under a dictatorship right? Oh yes, and I recall reading about how delighted the Spanish populace were in 1808 when “humanitarian of the year” Napoleon Bonaparte stabbed his ally in the back and sought to take over the country and install French rule on the Spanish people – how they laughed at this spiffing wheeze…. In fact I recall reading that people all over the continent were equally delighted to have members of Napoleon’s family and close friends ruling over them…. No nepotism there then - how enlightened... quote: Cautiously looking further into the future, the historian imagines a "continental Europe dominated by France" throughout the 19th century. Had that happened Germany would not have become so strong during that period, he says. "Germany would therefore probably not have been in a position to provoke a First and Second World War," he said. So now we know, if we had let Germany dominate Europe in the 1940’s we would never have had the cold war, Korea, Vietnam blah blah blah. What a load of old toss.

Joe D. -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:26:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wings7 Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)] Patrick Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart.

Agathosdaimon -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:39:55 PM)
i saw the article, and thought it fanciful pfaff at best -as the others say, napoleon had nothing after waterloo that would be any match for the many nations against him. waterloo was well past even being a swansong a decade prior he had it all more or less, a grande armee, diplomatic capital in playing and twissting alliances, new modes of warfare, and was even well received by some of the german lands...for a little while at least, as some viewed him as a liberator in comparison to their own governments, but come 1815, what does he have beyond waterloo? how would he even be able to think about conquering russia - no one can conquer russia, and all Europe was savvy to Napoleon's strategies.

wings7 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:44:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: wings7 Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)] Patrick Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart. Freedom of speech, isn't is great! Robert (warspite1) is an eloquent writer, indeed! [&o]

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:50:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon i saw the article, and thought it fanciful pfaff at best -as the others say, napoleon had nothing after waterloo that would be any match for the many nations against him. waterloo was well past even being a swansong a decade prior he had it all more or less, a grande armee, diplomatic capital in playing and twissting alliances, new modes of warfare, and was even well received by some of the german lands...for a little while at least, as some viewed him as a liberator in comparison to their own governments, but come 1815, what does he have beyond waterloo? how would he even be able to think about conquering russia - no one can conquer russia, and all Europe was savvy to Napoleon's strategies. warspite1 Apologies its been a while since I read on the Napoleonic wars so I am going from memory here. Even his strategies I believe have been over-hyped. What was the strategy at Borodino? What was the strategy at Friedland? Full frontal slogs. It is generally recognised that the battle of Jena(?) was won by one of his Corps commanders. Waterloo was a mess - and while blame may fall on the inability of others due to Napoleon's ill-health, it was Napoleon who was responsible for picking his staff for the battle. What the hell was Soult doing as CoS?? And was Ney really a sensible choice? Even if he was then he should have been sacked after his mis-handling of Quatre Bras.

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 1:51:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wings7 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: wings7 Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)] Patrick Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart. Freedom of speech, isn't is great! Robert (warspite1) is an eloquent writer, indeed! [&o] warspite1 Don't give me that Freedom of Speech crap Patrick. I want to live in a French dominated Dictatorship....[:D]

wings7 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 4:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: wings7 quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: wings7 Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)] Patrick Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart. Freedom of speech, isn't is great! Robert (warspite1) is an eloquent writer, indeed! [&o] warspite1 Don't give me that Freedom of Speech crap Patrick. I want to live in a French dominated Dictatorship....[:D] [:D]

tcarusil -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 4:42:49 PM)
What about the Saturday Night Live alternative history: "What if Napoleon had a B-52". Maybe then China[:)]

Aurelian -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 5:38:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Alchenar, you have said this article is ridiculous. I think that in using the word ridiculous you are being incredibly kind to this piece of garbage. In fairness the historian does say it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but then numerous other historians are quoted and as far as we know they are stating what they do with a straight face. quote: “Within years his empire will stretch as far as China” So after years of defeats, with the French nation assailed from all sides, he wins one battle in the north, and suddenly what? The Austrians, British, Prussians and Russians simply evaporate? quote: “Within years…..French will be spoken across the continent” Wow, that’s impressive….. quote: “and in the 20th century a global war between the great powers will be avoided because of the stability his rule created”. Slight problem here… its total sloblocks. Even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and entertain the idea that France in 1815 is in any position to defeat the Empires ranged against it, why does the author think the conquered peoples of Europe would be delighted to be under French rule and not rebel – like every other time a country has taken another by force? What so Napoleon’s rule is soooo enlightened that your average Prussian or Austrian will be gagging to dismiss their own culture, way of life, language and history and learn the wonders of the French language and embrace the impossibly perfect society that is Napoleonic Europe? Ooooohh I’m gagging with disappointment at missing out…. At least the Belgian historian does not appear to be living in cloud cuckoo land and recognises that the coalition ranged against Napoleon would actually do something about it. quote: "If Napoleon followed his original plans for 1810, he would have invaded Russia again and potentially extended his empire as far as China," Helmut Stubbe da Luz said Yes, that is right. And if Army Detachment Steiner had beaten the Soviets during the Battle for Berlin, Hitler would have extended his empire to China too…… Funny that the historian who said this, didn’t wonder why Napoleon couldn’t beat the Russians in 1812? Then the best bits… quote: “But what would an all-powerful Napoleon have been like to live under?” "The dictatorship that Napoleon exported to the countries under his domination was a regression compared to the progress of the French Revolution, but it wasn't bad for his new subjects in Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain," he said. He cited the "equality of rights for religious minorities and rural populations, the right to vote for men, a new judicial system and an expanded economic area". Well we all like living under a dictatorship right? Oh yes, and I recall reading about how delighted the Spanish populace were in 1808 when “humanitarian of the year” Napoleon Bonaparte stabbed his ally in the back and sought to take over the country and install French rule on the Spanish people – how they laughed at this spiffing wheeze…. In fact I recall reading that people all over the continent were equally delighted to have members of Napoleon’s family and close friends ruling over them…. No nepotism there then - how enlightened... quote: Cautiously looking further into the future, the historian imagines a "continental Europe dominated by France" throughout the 19th century. Had that happened Germany would not have become so strong during that period, he says. "Germany would therefore probably not have been in a position to provoke a First and Second World War," he said. So now we know, if we had let Germany dominate Europe in the 1940’s we would never have had the cold war, Korea, Vietnam blah blah blah. What a load of old toss. Back in the day when Simulations Publications Inc was in business, this came up. The answer, more or less. "Now add 200 Austrian 4-4 pieces and have at it." Winning Waterloo, or Mont St Jean if he had won. would of really been meaningless. Beating the Anglo-Prussian armies wouldn't be enough. He'd have to destroy the two armies. And that would not only of been costly, but moving on France we had the Army of the Upper Rhine (264,000) and the First Russian Army (164,000) The Napoleon of 1815 was not the Napoleon of 1805 or even 1809.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 8:06:49 PM)
The best Napy could have hoped for was to hang on to France, take and hang on to Flanders (generally favorable population, which is why he went there in 1815), and Germany west of the Rhine River (even today Germans in that area are pro-Napy, anti-Prussian when discussing that era). As for the campaign, why the heck was not his #1 Marshall involved (Davout)?...he keeps Davout in Paris to raise a reserve army. Imagine if it had been Davout instead of Ney. But again, even at the most optimistic, there is no getting east of the Rhine for him 1815+.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 9:03:51 PM)
If you go back to when Napoleon was General Bonaparte and not Emperor Napoleon, he was viewed as a liberator. Remember that Beethoven had dedicated his 3rd symphony to him (later retracted, of course). The rest of Europe was not a bunch of democracies. They were almost entirely hereditary monarchies. At least one of them had only recently suffered a disastrous revolt in one of its overseas colonies triggered by that colony's desire to be free from hereditary monarchy. Certainly, by Waterloo the jig was up, of course. It was probably over the minute he declared himself Emperor. But prior to that, the idea of Europe going French in a big way might have been doable - if only Napoleon had stuck to the script.

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 9:22:11 PM)
Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader. "Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]". And that assumes of course that Napoleon was soooo great. Was he? Really? The way some people talk about him its like he was this great super-being, this great humanitarian, this all-knowing colossus.... As you say, whatever people thought he might be, crowning himself Emperor? King and Queen jobs for family and friends? Noooooooooooo...... Epic fail.

Jagdtiger14 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 10:29:30 PM)
The reason Germans west of the Rhine liked Napy is because he exported to them ideals of the French revolution that they for the first time enjoyed (private property, etc...)...the loss of these "liberties" remained a sore at least in the Palatinate until the failed revolution in 1848.

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 10:35:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14 The reason Germans west of the Rhine liked Napy is because he exported to them ideals of the French revolution that they for the first time enjoyed (private property, etc...)...the loss of these "liberties" remained a sore at least in the Palatinate until the failed revolution in 1848. warspite1 I'm certainly not disputing that many liked and admired him - and I am equally sure that he was not all bad. However, the fundamental point is that people do not like others telling them what to do. Particularly when that includes something like: "Right geezers listen up. I've had this great idea, I'm going to invade Russia. Only thing is, I don't have enough Frenchman for the job. So I'm going to ask all you nice Italians, Germans, Poles etc etc to "volunteer" to help me. I'm sure you won't mind dying for the greater glory of France in general and for me in particular [:)]. Anyway, hurry along now I can't wait around all day, I've got to get to China......" That sort of thing really tends to wee on a man's cherrios.....

histgamer -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 11:11:33 PM)
Napoleon's real hope would have been a crushing blow at Ligny, a blow that annihilates the Prussians. Such a blow could have happened perhaps had those 40,000 men come in on the Prussian flank. The lack of experience in the Prussian Army could have caused a panic and effectively destroyed the Prussian field army. In that case Wellington withdraws and the Austrian's and Russian's may have waited for Wellington to redeploy to their armies (which would have taken weeks if not a month or two) or gone at it alone. With the Prussian's likely busy reforming Austria and Russia combined would be a far less formidable obstacle for Napoleon and the other troops he had training and forming elsewhere in France. Still a tough ask but it's feasible Austria and Russia put off a summer offensive all together if the British and Prussian's are removed from the equation. Keep in mind this is all highly hypothetical and unlikely but I think Ligny was the better chance. I just don't see Napoleon having the strength to defeat the British in anything more than a minor victory and still having the energy and power to turn on the Prussian's and defeat them in detail as they came up. If Napoleon was unable to remove both the Prussian's and British from the equation the Russian's and Austrian's would be in conjunction with Prussia or Britain to strong.

jday305 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/8/2015 11:19:55 PM)
Alternate history is nothing but fiction with some tidbits of fact. No one can really know what would really happen if Napoleon actually won the battle of Waterloo except that history would have change for France. This change would have probably be short-lived but who knows for sure. I love alternate history stories for only the enjoyment of a good story. Harry Turtledove has done a great job of what if the south won the civil war. It lasted about 12 books but was a great read if only not the most realistic in fact.

Agathosdaimon -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 12:20:17 AM)
warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders. the battle of Friedland had some skill in it, it was a trap that the coalition fell into, but moreover for many battles and campaigns it was some good fortune that was on napoleons side by just enough . how much he lost in casualties in his battles i am not too sure - did he let his armies suffer too much attrition? in 1813 the coalition knew they could tire napys men out with sending them on wild goose chases, constantly retreating and moving around in circles, avoiding a fight they had the numbers

Curtis Lemay -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 12:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader. "Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]". You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language).

Alchenar -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 7:51:58 AM)
Naples is good example. Where Napoleon overthrew monarchies and replaced them with republican governments (because he'd run out of relatives to hand the throne to) they were typically quite popular. The Napoleonic Code has also been incredibly influential in the legal and political development of everywhere in the world that wasn't subject to English influence (euphemism for 'Empire').

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 8:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders. the battle of Friedland had some skill in it, it was a trap that the coalition fell into, but moreover for many battles and campaigns it was some good fortune that was on napoleons side by just enough . how much he lost in casualties in his battles i am not too sure - did he let his armies suffer too much attrition? in 1813 the coalition knew they could tire napys men out with sending them on wild goose chases, constantly retreating and moving around in circles, avoiding a fight they had the numbers warspite1 I think he still had plenty of decent leaders to choose from - the criticism at Waterloo was that he didn't pick them - or had men in the wrong roles. Napoleon had ample warning with Ney - he totally mucked up Quatre Bras thus giving Wellington the ability to choose his ground. I cannot recall the detail, but for every Austerlitz (a brilliantly worked plan) there seemed to be a Borodino (a charnel house). So yes, attrition was high - and of course in those days that was as much due to conditions - and the French were fighting not just in Russia but were involved in a totally needless war in Spain thanks to Napoleon's treachery.

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 8:34:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader. "Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]". You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language). warspite1 Maybe, and there are always exceptions. However, if you look through history, how many invasions and conquests have lasted for any length of time before the natives get restless? It will usually happen eventually - particularly if there is an external party there to help e.g. Britain with Portugal and Spain. I am not sure I agree re the Normans though. This was definitely one of those exceptions. The Normans won (there was no kicking them out at anytime thereafter) - of that there is absolutely no dispute, e.g. French words are an influence on the language we speak. Interesting observation I heard on that the other day - which I will dig out if you are interested - and shows how English words and French words are used to describe things. But the idea that they are still "lording over the English"?? and "you could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings" are strange sentiments. 1066 was a long time ago! I can assure you there is absolutely no sense of the French or the Normans or whoever "lording it over us". We are who we are and William the Conqueror is a big part of that. The pedigree of British Kings? Well considering we imported the Dutch William and Mary (Charles II was just toooo Catholic dahling) and later the "German" Hanoverians, I think its fair to say the Norman influence, from a Royal perspective, is over [;)] If your point is that the Dutch and "German" Kings constitute a quasi-invasion then again that is most certainly not the case (and I assume that is not what you are saying). The daily life of your average Briton did not change one iota due to these changes of convenience.

histgamer -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 8:57:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders. Sounds kinda like Lee in the Civil War after Jackson died, Longstreet was grievously wounded... Starting with the Napoleonic wars as armies got huge I don't think you could have a single great commander and win great victories without exceptional lt's under the commander. Things just got too big for one man to manage.

warspite1 -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 9:07:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: flanyboy quote: ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon warspite, indeed napoleon had much to thank for the commanders under him really bringing through victories, and maybe that keen eye for ability was with him early on? but Ney at waterloo was disastrous, so he seemed by waterloo to have lost too many of his skilled leaders. Sounds kinda like Lee in the Civil War after Jackson died, Longstreet was grievously wounded... Starting with the Napoleonic wars as armies got huge I don't think you could have a single great commander and win great victories without exceptional lt's under the commander. Things just got too big for one man to manage. warspite1 Quite. It depends on the size of the armies and the wars being waged. For a large set piece battle a commander needs good corps commanders, the corps commander need good divisional leaders etc etc.

Joe D. -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 1:18:50 PM)
BTW, historically, what ever happened to the 33,000 French soldiers -- about one-third of Napoleon's army -- that were supposed to pursue and finish-off Herr Blucher after his Prussians were defeated at Ligny? As we all know, the Prussians managed to rally and return to Waterloo, and the rest as they say, was history

v.Manstein -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 1:35:12 PM)
Grouchy with his 33000 men decided against to march to the sound of the guns raging at Waterloo, so he stuck to his original orders to chase Bluecher who they thought were somewhere else.

Curtis Lemay -> RE: If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" .... (6/9/2015 3:26:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader. "Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]". You may be taking too modern a take on it. The Austrian and Ottoman Empires were pretty polyglot. Most of Germany was divided up into petty fiefdoms fearful of Prussia. Look how long the Normans lorded it over the English (You could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings). It wasn't till Edward I that The King of England could even speak English (and it still wasn't his first language). warspite1 Maybe, and there are always exceptions. However, if you look through history, how many invasions and conquests have lasted for any length of time before the natives get restless? It will usually happen eventually - particularly if there is an external party there to help e.g. Britain with Portugal and Spain. I am not sure I agree re the Normans though. This was definitely one of those exceptions. I'm just pointing out that Nationalism was a late arrival to the scene. There were inklings of it late in the Napoleonic Wars, but it mostly kicked in later in the 19th Century. I've already mentioned the Austrian and Ottoman Empires as long-lasting examples of multi-national peoples being lorded over. The Normans succeeded because they only had to kick out the Anglo-Saxon lords and replace them with their own guys. The common people didn't really care. And it was a really long time before any Anglo-Saxon blood found its way back into the royal line. quote: But the idea that they are still "lording over the English"?? and "you could make the case that they're still doing so if you check the pedigrees of British Kings" are strange sentiments. 1066 was a long time ago! I can assure you there is absolutely no sense of the French or the Normans or whoever "lording it over us". We are who we are and William the Conqueror is a big part of that. The pedigree of British Kings? Well considering we imported the Dutch William and Mary (Charles II was just toooo Catholic dahling) and later the "German" Hanoverians, I think its fair to say the Norman influence, from a Royal perspective, is over [;)] If your point is that the Dutch and "German" Kings constitute a quasi-invasion then again that is most certainly not the case (and I assume that is not what you are saying). The daily life of your average Briton did not change one iota due to these changes of convenience. Ok, a bit of hyperbole, but they all trace to the Conqueror and the amount of Anglo-Saxon in them is swamped by French and German. Of course there is no "sense" of it because they don't act foreign, having lived in Britain for centuries. It wasn't just the British - all the royal houses interbred all over Europe. The Russian Tsars were more German than Russian, they married so many German princesses.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.171875