Why was Napoleon exiled and not executed?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- Napoleon Bonaparte, thought to be one of the most influential and polarizing men in history, was, after his abdication in 1814 and again in 1815, exiled rather than executed. One might wonder why? On the surface the monarchies of Europe did have their reasons to do so.
After all he was the man who sought to bring the British economy to its knees, implementing the so called Continental system, the man who on more than one occasion embarrassed the Austrian and especially the Prussian military, thought to be at the time the mightiest land army in the world, he was a person first admired by tsar Alexander but would later be branded as a tyrant and an enemy of the orthodox faith by the same man.
Not the mention the countless lives lost, the destruction of Moscow as a consequence of Russia’s scorched earth policy, and the invasion of Spain who was at the time an ally of France.
But above anything else he was a man that completely disrupted the balance of power in Europe. He would endanger the hegemony of the British empire up to that time. And while he was alive there was always a possibility that he would to do so again.
But, on closer inspection, it isn’t quite as simple as it seems, and a more nuanced approach is necessary.
00:00 Intro
01:09 Factual background
03:45 Why didn't they kill him?
06:00 Why was Napoleon loved?
Reading material:
- Napoleon, A Life by Andrew Roberts
- Price, Munro. Napoleon: The End of Glory. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.
- Dwyer, Philip G. Citizen Emperor: Napoleon in Power. New Haven : Yale University Press, 2013
- Woloch, Isser. Napoleon and His Collaborators: The Making of a Dictatorship. New York: W.W. Norton, 2001.
Relevant Wikipedia articles
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...)
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdicat...
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred...
- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebhard...
Twitter profile: / historyseek
00:00 Intro
01:09 Factual background
03:45 Why didn't they kill him?
06:00 Why was Napoleon loved?
please keep making vidoes ... you will get more subscribers
I would rather be executed and end my life there than just sit on an island depressed with no glory and no hope
@@hazmatv7157 :(
@@aligator7181 Napoleon didnt mass murder people ... like Ghangis Khan did ....
@@aligator7181 total BS! Napoleon freed many people and his soldiers brought the idea of revolution to all corners of Europe and it settled and would be the base of the 1848 revolutions. It only failed in 2 places: Spain and Russia, because people were too ignorant there.
Executing a ruler isn't the kind of thing rulers want to set a precedent on.
Good point
je pense que si l'Aiglon avait survécu, les français auraient tenté de le mettre sur le trône!
Nicolae Ceausescu (the ruler of Romania 1964-1989) in december 1989 was killed by soviets (infiltrated in Securitate and PCR - ROMANIAN COMMUNIST PARTY) their names was desconspired recent as - Ion Iliescu (former KGB agent) was president of Romania 1990-1996; 2000-2004 , Petre Roman (prime minister 1990-1991) , Nicolae Militaru , general in romanian army ,and minister of National Defence 1990-1991 (LOL !) historians from today found them as KGB agents ...Ceausescu was killed fast after capture because Mikhail Gorbachev demanded this after a call with Ion Iliescu ,the usurper ,and very fast imposed by Kremlin as president of Romania 1990-1996 ...so historians also said that in december 1989 in Romania was a coup made soviet agents infiltrated in all key positions in the government with the help of Kremlin ,and this was not a "revolution" of the romanian people...like official was named the event of december 1989 in Romania ...so we waited 30 years to find this truth...so sad... i wonder why americans don't find who killed JFK ! it's almost 60 years from that sad event held in Dallas, 1963... in my opinion was "an inside job"
@@dand7763 Not only is this false, but irrelevant, because Nicolae Ceausescu was not a King, and regicide was very taboo, not executing a political office.
Additionally, Nicolae and Elena Ceausescu were rather stupid, vain and evil people who deserved what they got.
@@jeannesandner1918 fais l'effort de parler anglais
Napoleon was national hero then and even now in France. Executing Napoleon would make him a martyr. History has proved that martyrs are more dangerous than living men. They become symbols and inspirations of movements, nationalism and rebellions. The English played their cards well.
A Hero ? A man that caused so much misery and death to his country,war after war to bring so called glory to himself.Read up on his behaviour in Egypt to the French left behind.
@@johnroddy8756 Pretty much , like saying Hitler is German hero. Not totally same , but in some aspects the same .
@@johnroddy8756 There was one poet,ruler and bishop, Petar Petrovic Njegos , of Montenegro who said this about Napoleon : The whole world wasn't enough for him , but two feet of ground is more than enough .
@@aleksandarnedeljkovic8104 Napoleons 3 when he was over thrown ,The family moved to England.And his son was Cadet in the British Army.He was allowed to see action Zulu wars,and speared to death.The last of the Napoleons .Was Napoleon executed NO but many believe including Napoleon himself,That he was poisoned .Many ways to skin a cat as old saying goes.
I've never understood how an imperialistic general whose name has become a synonym for small d#@k egomania throughout the world can still be such a worshipped personality in France. He is literally responsible for the pointless deaths of millions of people.
When he returned from his first exile he proved a point, that his rule was far better than the re-established Bourbon dynasty. Louis XVIII fled Paris rather than face him. He truly was a man of the Enlightenment, carrying out reforms all over Europe which undermined royal absolutism. He showed the concept of a ruling class to be anachronistic. If he had been executed it would have partly been an act of revenge by the Ancien Regime which would have backfired, making him a martyr to countess thousands of common French people.
@@TheThreatenedSwan what exactly is your definition of liberal? Because calling the elite ruling class of an absolute monarchy "liberal" is a direct contradiction.
@@DuckoftheDraw the non-american version it seems, what you call classic liberal perhaps
@@emanuellopes6166 yeah so how could aristocrats be liberals? They're the definition of conservative. The enlightenment was focused mostly on taking away their right to rule.
@@DuckoftheDraw everything is relative, no?
@@DuckoftheDraw yeah, it makes sense, although I thought he was talking about the economic elite not the nobility
Excellent examination. One quibble with the description of Napoleon Crossing the Alps: the wind in the painting is at Napoleon's back, aiding him in his climb. Far from "denying the wind," it would seem Napoleon is buoyed by it in his quest.
@@aligator7181 you fail to understand the symbolism of art. In the painting in question the interpretation is significant
@@aligator7181no he's not my hero. I'm sorry if my comment came off condescending. I have no intention of glorifying Napoleon, however the artist clearly was. My comment had more to do with the painting and what the artist was attempting to portray than the man in it. However despite the fact that he plunged Europe into a devastating war, I think that it is still possible to admire his skills as a military strategist.
@@aligator7181 he actually rode a mule over the alps
@@aligator7181 you may know about art but you know eff all about napoleonic history einstein!
Napoleon crossed the Alps on a mule anyway, people always lionised their heroes, a bit like when we see jesus looking like Jim Morrison from the doors when in reality he probably resembled bin laden !
I think they were smart, killing him would probably have created riots in Western Europe, the Napoleonic wars had done enough damage, I think they wanted calm to return to the continent
.
Killing someone who surrenders to you Will also only encourage the next enemy to fight to the death
Lmao nope, Napoleon was hated everywhere, especially France along with all the masonic scum
@@alexmag342 Lmao you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@alexmag342 >portuguese pfp
makes sense
@@alexmag342 no, they hated *war* not Napoleon
If you think about it for a second.
Napoleon was and still is highly respected by the french people even after he became emperor.
after his first defeat, he "escaped" exile on elba and returned to france and they welcomed him back.
exiling or executing a person with this kind of influence, you're going to need an extremely good reason to get way with it.
Napoleon was a brilliant military genius who became emperor and his victories made him well respected during the revolution and into the future.
executing him would have caused backlash and give the people of France only two options:
either fight on or lose hope.
I hope you understand my reasoning.
We even have a lot of respect for him in America, where history is almost always taught from the British point of view
@freneticness _ pretty sure that the Americans stayed out of all of Napoleon's wars.
the war of 1812 was a completely separate war and had nothing to do with napoleon
Even today Napoleon gets about 50% on the polls.
@freneticness _ America wasn't fighting along side France. They were fighting completely different wars. American-French relations broke down after the XYZ affair and the undeclared war they fought.
@@DuckoftheDraw This isn't so strange, considering America at the time still remembered their fight for independence... a fight which they could not have won without France's help.
I think one of the main reason Wellington refused to execute Napoleon was that he respect Napoleon so much.
Wellington never had the chance to fight Napoleon army when it was at its might.
He fought Napoleon at Waterloo, at that time Napoleon army was full of recruits and teenagers, not the grand armee.
And Wellington lost a battle with ney days before Waterloo and he had respect
@@militaryjunkie6207 i would say that wellington won agains ney days before waterloo, but that ney held the british army in place long enough for napoleon to beat the prussians. so he where able to not let the 2 armies combine.
The French had been decent with British POW's and the British reciprocated. The British held no visceral hatred for Napoleon since they had not been invaded by him. The Prussians on the other hand, had been conquered by him and Napoleon's treatment of them had been horrendous and they hated the French with a passion. Their treatment of French civilians was pretty shameful in 1814 and 1815.
@@militaryjunkie6207 let alone that many other conditions were against Napoleon ; the weather , the muddy terrain , the great defensive position wellington had .
Even with all of that , the French army was close to defeating the British , if not for the Prussians arriving .
@@ahmedayman6459 yes, the French army was always under bad conditions, from politics to bad allies.
They overcame something that’s unheard of.
I was reading Adam Zamoyski's biography "Napoleon: A Life". In it, Zamoyski pointed out that a major reason why Napoleon's Hundred Days return to France in 1815 was so chaotic, and fell apart so quickly, was that Napoleon was just winging things the whole time. No long-term planning, no strategy, no nothing.
Why? Assassination. Or rumours about it. Before his 1815 return, apparently stories kept spreading worldwide that Europe's rulers considered it inconvenient that Napoleon was just hanging around on St. Elba. They were terrified of him slipping his anchor and popping back to France whenever he pleased and making a vast triumphant return to power and war and devastation. He could smash Europe's political chessboard all over again. They considered his presence on St. Elba threatening. So threatening.
These rumours soon reached Napoleon himself. Zamoyski couldn't find any evidence of Napoleon actually making such plans. Apparently he'd genuinely resigned himself to simply faffing around on St. Elba for the remainder of his life.
Nevertheless, the rumours persisted. Assassins might assassinate him at any moment.
So he decided, fuckit, I refuse to just hang around waiting for a thug's blade. Any return to this alleged power and war, no matter how chaotic or unplanned or disastrous, is better than that. Let us roll the iron dice one last time! To glory!
Excellent book 📚
I expect he may have regretted not dying on the battlefield at Waterloo. Going down with the Old Guard.
Slow death a boredom on Saint Helena was a fitting punishment
@@tomashize You got that right. Zamoyski goes into detail there too. St. Helena had two thousand troops garrisoned, plus two Navy ships constantly circling the island, just simply to guard Napoleon. Napoleon would frequently amuse himself by pretending to escape, and hiding, just to watch the garrison go into a tizzy and get all excited and charge all over the place.
@@pineutrino lmfaoooo 😂😂😂😂. Napoleon is a fucking chad.
British - Polish propaganda right here folks! Lame. Who cares about that biased polish nobody? I much prefer the accounts of the actual French or British that where there with Napoleon. Napoleon was actually the best leader at the time and certainly one of the best of all the times.
Actual reason.
Politicians and kings didn't want to get killed when they lose.
So they didn't want to set a dangerous precedent for them.
That holds true today, politicians and their sons don't go into battle, they just reap the rewards win or lose
@@dennissimo7546 Mostly true yeah.
The politicians /government will look after the politicians /government,not the people.
Even in 9/11 they didn't warn the people when they had info,they just evacuated important personnel.(source edward snowden.)
If you ignore all other objective valid reasons, ya thats the only one.
@@rickroll9705They also want to form treaties (peace treaty,spoils of war,territory annexation)with that leader(convince the head=convince the population) cause killing that guy means a new leader for that defeated faction.
Everyone usually wants an end to the war even when you are winning.
Im actually curious.
What other reasons are there for this practice?
@@hieroprotoganist3440 You are extremely naive if you believe killing leaders will cease wars lmao.
Executing leaders of opposing nations was not considered a rational idea until the 19th century. A classic example was how Scipio Africanus was disappointed by the persecution of Hanibal and understood the situation as a moral decadence of Rome. In the middle ages, leaders were not normally executed, and were taken prisoner and returned for ransom. I believe that war was seen more as a natural event or as a business, whereas today it is seen as a crime by itself. Our view of war today comes down to good versus evil, where im good and my enemy is the evil, which requires a scapegoat, a personification, to be executed by the winning side. I think that's why we find the death of opposing leaders so natural these days. It's funny how our society has evolved but we face war as an act of deep and uncontrollable hate. Such act calls for the total destruction of those "responsible" for this state, which normally consists of the leaders of the enemy nation or faction of course...
Read somewhere that this arose as an issue with Mary of Scots, whether sovereigns have the right to put other monarchs on trial and execute them.
Alexander wanted to capture Darius III.
Meanwhile romans literally executed their own emperors over and over and over
After you went through the bloodiest, destructive wars in human history called WWI and WWII, back to back with a small break in between, and witness its horrors and destructions, you will understand why the restart button should only exist in a video game.
@@6ick6ick6ity5 Emperors got assassinated, not executed.
I always assumed because he was still popular and the Allies didn't want to have to reduce all of France by military force, drive everyone who had served Bonaparte underground or into resistance in fear for their own lives, or start the not very capable Louis XVIII off on the wrong foot, either in 1814 or 1815. Executing defeated heads of state wasn't normal for them, anyway, not even dodgy not quite legitimate self-made emperors, not least because at one time or another everyone had recognized his government and treated with him. Plus, although on one hand he had served the republic as an officer with great skill including against Royalists in Paris and Toulon, he had had no part in the revolution, the overthrow of Louis XVI and his execution, or the creation of a republic. So he was only even a rebel or traitor against the French Crown by several circumstantial removes. The government he overthrew on 18 Brumaire was already illegitimate from a Royalist POV.
In short; As a ruler, you dont want to make it a precedent that a ruler can be executed.
This theory has a problem. Why then has it become common to execute your enemy's leader nowadays?
@@vampirecount3880 It's due to WW1 and subsequent Marxist revolutions.
Remember how Jefferson Davis, despite being a traitor of the United States, was eventually pardoned by the US government? Back then, even rebel leaders were more or less viewed as the brain of a social organism that should not be simply decapitated.
However, in the views of Marxism, political leaders were no longer viewed as the brains that command and maintain the functions of the social organism they belong, but as parasites of the whole social organism that is supposed to be able to have self-awareness and self-control even without a brain (Lenin modified Marx's theory by insisting that the Communist Party shall replace the parasitical "brain" and become the social organism's real brain). The advent of Nazism worsens the situation by claiming that a superior social organism is supposed to completely murder, consume, and digest inferior social organisms -- that is to say, a country is like a wolf which is entitled to kill and eat up any other animals that it can kill, and its people are the country's cells. The influence of the aforementioned political ideologies resulted in the unfortunate modern barbaric trend of killing political leaders in wars.
Even up to WW2 the US was able to resist such a paradigm shift by sparing the lives of President Donitz and Emperor Hirohito. Yet in 2003 the US finally succumbed to such a corruptive paradigm by executing Saddam Hussein, who subsequently became the martyr of the Third World. Now you wonder why so many people wanted to invade Washington DC and execute Dubya as a war criminal.
Precedent was already done by killing franch king. Napoleon was saved for being servant of Ones Your Should Not Named.
@@vampirecount3880 because monarchs had the "divine right" thing back then so executing them was seen as ungodly. It's also due to tradition and honor because nobles used to be captured alive and ransomed in the middle ages. Nowadays leaders label their enemies as bad people and bad people had to be punish, and people don't care about honor in war anymore. And leaders today are not divine monarchs but are just normal people.
🤣"in short"
With the presence of the French Consulate at Longwood, Saint Helena, it is said that the ghost of Napoleon still walks through the halls of Longwood house, pacing the floor as he continues to contemplate his memoirs.
And mutters constantly "Shoulda, coulda, woulda".
@@artemisp.folglemeyerhe spoke English?😱😱
After reading several comments, I've come to an interesting conclusion.
There's an argument for not killing a ruler when you depose them, because, in a way, it allows you to control where that man's influence will go. For if you do choose to kill him, the power vacuum that ensues means that you're suddenly unable to truly influence the destiny of that ruler's nation.
"Better the evil you know, than one you don't."
It is therefore impractical to kill a ruler, if you are hoping your terms to last.
(But also, do not commit the mistake of not making sure that such a ruler is actually unable to overturn your dictates)
ie like the vaccun that allowed Napoleons rise to power in the first place.
Very accurate
Yes, but also none of the rulers wanted to make it a practice to kill the ruler of the side that loses the war.
"A King does not kill another King."
Haven’t they tho ?
Salahuddin said that
Thank you for this interesting presentation. I like to add some information: Napoleon used poison in the hope to kill himself during his first abdication crisis. But the poison was too old and he only suffered terribly from the attempt in Fontainebleau. He decided to never try to suicide again. After his escape from the Waterloo battle field in 1815 he first chose to reach the small castle of Malmaison beside Paris. There he had still the possibility to make choices such as killing himself or to surrender again.. or to escape to the USA. This evasion plan to the US came to the attention of Fouchet who was already in secret negotiations with the Bourbons and the allied forces. Fouchet did his best to try to persuade Napoleon to not "become an adventurer" but to confront the allied victors as a surrendering Monarch. What a pity indeed that Napoleon lost precious time with such intriguing treacherous advisors and when he finally reached the coast of France his ship was already a sitting duck blocked by the Royal Navy. Fouchet will remain in his functions as main chief of the french police and serve the returning King from exile. Obviously it was far better to have Napoleon locked-up by the British instead of knowing him free in the USA with new invasion plans in the making and many soldiers and servants of the state remaining sympathetic to the Emperor. The King of France needed Napoleon out of the picture to get enough support by the many qualified followers and leaders of the Bonaparte Regime. The page had to be turned in order to let the society in France go forward in the new era. This was how Fouchet evaluated the situation.And Napoleon fell into the trap. Locked up in Saint Helena and getting sick he will at least have had enough time there to write his autobiography.. which is of course a very interesting book to read.Interestingly his "nephew" the future Napoleon III lived in the UK for a couple years and he crossed the channel into France trying to overthrow the King in France. Something he failed to do and he got jailed for that. Modern testing of the DNA of his hair and of a living direct male descendant has established that Napoleon III was not a descendant of any Bonaparte male but the child fathered by a yet unknown man. Irony of history indeed.
would have been truly a different world if he made it to America!
Thing is though, Napoleon III was legally declared Emperor of the French, and also he never formally abdicated, so even despite that his line would still be technically legitimate (EVEN IF he was only Napoleon's "step-nephew").
@@hawkeyeten2450 Yes. He was an elected President of a Republic. The voters chose him for his qualities. Whatever he did next is an evolution out of this legal event. His position is legitimate because of the souvereignity of the French citizens. Not because he is the descendant of somebody.
Heard of the British attempting to poison him. Never of him trying to commit suicide.
There was too much nostalgia and even respect for Napoleon in France. The French and certainly the allies were anxious to avoid more unrest in France- although restoring Bourbon monarchs did not work out very well either.
the french people suffered a lot for the napoleonic war, many of his gran armee were forced recruits, the obsesion with napoleon came after when Frenc France declined so much, like all the countries it did not stop turning to the past, dreaming for the glory of before.
@@mexicoxv2236 no Napoléon Always as been and Always will be respected theres not a Time in History where french people didnt like Napoléon je will Always be the empereur and the greatest general of History
Heck, he is the only foreign leader to be given a state precession in the UK.
Napoleon keeping the title of emporer was just a joke really. Britain has always been the memelord.
britain at that time: emperor of what? of a tiny island?
Of memes my friend
They did it to undermine his power, it wasn't napoleon they were afraid of it was France itself.
if they excuted him or treated him horribly after he fought them fairly the whole of france would revolt again and when france revolt monarchs tend to lose their heads.
@@youneskasdi The French people turned on Bonaparte the moment he lost Waterloo. The man had chucked bucket loads of French blood down the drain over the course.of his reign in perpetual wars. France was in no mood for it in 1815. Britain fought the French non stop for 20 years, and was in the winning side. Not sure that makes you scared...
@@nuvpapupapa5996 tiny but big empire
Accidentally discovered this channel. Your video is really good, looking forward for your videos
Welcome aboard 👍
Napoleon was held in high esteem even in the state of Louisiana- My dad was born in Napoleonville, La., named by one of his soldiers. Even in New Orleans, Napoleon Ave. has always been a popular street with two cross streets named after a couple of his victories, Marengo and Austerlitz.
My mom is from Napoleonville too!
Louisiana does not follow common law, but the Napoleonic Code.
One day - our Fuhrer will also have many streets named after him: the greatest man to have ever lived. He tried to warn us.
Traitors.
So there is a city named after the man who reintroduced slavery and took away women's rights. Cool…Just wondering if this city is located between Hitlertown and Maovillage?
Perhaps the British were thinking long range, as in time they eventually developed St. Helena Island as a tourist destination with Napoleon's exile and death there as its historic calling card.
An excellent book, The Murder of Napolean, details the years long efforts by Sten Forshufvud, a Swedish scientist, researching the death of Napolean. The authors follow Forshufvud as he puts together a case for the chronic arsenic poisoning of Napoleon. A forensic analysis of various locks of the emperor's hair showed he had been administered arsenic over several months ultimately ending in his death.
I remember reading and article about this in Reader's Digest many years ago.
I have that book as well. The author was a dentist, not a scientist. Many reject the evidence of deliberate arsenic poisoning stating that the wallpaper at Longwood contained arsenic that gave off vapour due to the fact that napoleon kept the house tightly isolated due to the cold and his constant need for furnace-like temperature. One point i do agree on is the color of his skin had nothing to do with arsenic. His skin was described as being yellow even in his younger pre-consul days. Those who support that he died of stomach cancer ignore the fact that cancer leave one in a skinny state of which napoleon certainly was not. On the contrary, both pictures and drawings of the period depict him as being almost obese right to the end. He died from an ulcer caused by arsenic. I read the other day that Hudson Lowe actually offered Napoleon a better more healthy shelter, but it was declined on the grounds that a jail was a jail, no matter the look. He was obviously determined to make his jailors, the British, look bad.
@@michaelbrandt5416 I'm no doctor, but doesn't yellowish skin indicate liver issues?
@@fokkerd3red618 Yes, and malaria too. I believe napoleon caught malaria during his egyptian campaign.
Could it be the wall paper?
Well Prussia is powerful back then but even so it was not "thought to be the mightiest army in Land" it is France and because of this it contributed as a factor as why France is very confident to beat Prussia in the Franco-Prussian war.
Even as late as May 9th 1940 France was considered to have the most powerful land army in the world…
You are correct, my mistake...
Should have double checked the script properly...
@@hanz3967 Why the sarcastic insult?? I’m just pointing out something that most ppl forget that Throughout the majority of European history France was the most powerful army… Only what, the late 1800s was this not true after 1870 war??
@@hanz3967 and Versailles only came about why? Because France beat Germany
@@hanz3967 And yet odds are you'll be the first to say that England beat Napoleon and the US won WW2.
Plus it wasn't even Germany nor Prussia against France in this war, but the North German confederacy along all Southern german states that weren't Austria, which technically isn't 1v1 if you wanna play picky (a ridiculous notion when talking warfare anyway).
Saying France was considered the strongest until the 1940 debacle isn't wrong, yes there was the period going from 1871 to 14-18 when germany was bigger and better, but before that was the period from essentially Clovis to the aforementioned date with some exceptions like the hundred years war period.
As for your "dictate" it's called losing, incredible how wehraboos will play cognitive dissonance and act as if the terms were somehow unjust when the very war you just cited had similar if not identical consequences for the loser, as in territorial annexation, regime change, occupation, demilitarisation and massive reparations.
Amazing video! Can't wait for more videos from this channel! A breath of fresh air on the platform
Keep up the amazing work it's starting to look like the algorithm is turning in your favor.
Highly informative!
Hope ur channel grows well, and may the consistency gods be with u good sir. Subscribed. 👌
Great video, as always!
Fitting indeed to use the 1812 Overture as background music.
I personally think that all those leaders were sick of having blood on their hands, methaforicly speaking, it must be a pain in the ass to take the decisions about war, you simply wouldn't be able to sleep that much at night, its a huge responsibility.
This man was an absolute genius. I’ve read five different biographies of him…
A murderous genius, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands to keep himself in power.
Another great video. Keep it up! 👍🏻👍🏻
Thank you so much for the kind comment!
great video i always wondered this
8:16 Fun fact: Napoleon did cross the Alps on a mule, a mix between horse and donkey. So technically, the painting did tell _half_ the truth.
Not sure about the Corsican himself but according to this his carrier was a bit of an ass.
Napoleon definitely isn’t an innocent character but many people forget that all of Europe was at Empire building at the time, it wasn’t unique to the French, the other empires just hated that they picked a fight and got spanked. The real travesty as far as the other European empires were concerned was that the French had overturned the old order and took the opportunity with their campaign successes to export the new Republican ideas to the rest of Europe. That was the thing that the other empires could not abide, the rest is largely a justification. As far as they’re concerned, he wasn’t the antichrist because he expanded in Empire, he was the antichrist because he was bringing dangerous ideas which threatened the foundations of all the other empires who were still living in the past. Very good video though. I often wondered this and just assumed it was because France would have been uncontrollable if it happened, similar to Japan after World War II.
Thanks for making this interesting video 👍🏻 glad I found your channel just subscribed
This channel is amazing.
Please keep on making videos. 👍
Politicians were a lot less brutal and far more gentlemanly in the early 19th century than in the 20th. Napoleon was hated but respected, and they also knew that executing him would turn him into a martyr and a venerated hero figure. It would lead to more wars as the French people would seek revenge. There is also a persistent rumour that Napoleon was poisoned secretly by the British in 1821, but this is unlikely and there is no supporting evidence. Finally, Napoleon was guilty of simply losing the final war against the allied coalitions, nothing more. He wasn't a psychopathic criminal like Hitler.
I agree. Although Napoleon was responsible for the death of many thousands, these were deaths on the field of battle, not cosidered genicide. But, perhaps, Francisco Goya, might have disagreed.
@@charlesfenwick6554 If you say such a thing, perhaps you should underline that Napoleon only declared war 2 times : against Spain and against Russia after they broke the treaty of Tilsit. The other wars have been declared by the "allies" monarchies and most of the war effort has been paid by the UK. Prussia and Austria had the manpower, the UK was the wallet. During the was of the 1st coalition, Napoleon wasn't even the head of state, but a victorious general who submitted the Austrians 1 vs 2 at 27 years old. He really took the power only in 1799, at 30 years old, after the coup d'état du 18 Brumaire. The monarchies of Europe feared the Revolution and Napoleon said "i am the Revolution". They had to stop him in order to stop the spreading of the French ideals, unified and embodied by this, whether one likes him or not, genius of his time.
@@charlesfenwick6554 War is war, not a game of football. In war you die, there is no other way to fight a war, and Britain has started more wars than any other country on earth. Napoleon only fought defensive wars.
@@tancreddehauteville764 The grande armee entered Russia with more than 400000 men. How many came out alive? Napoleon was responsible for the death of thousands not only of the enemy but also of his own men. Italy and Spain were no threat to France. Hubris led Napoleon to overreach himself and France never recovered even to this day: the Australian humiliation.
@@charlesfenwick6554 Russia refused to observe the continental trading ban on Britain and was openly defiant of Napoleon. Invading Russia was a huge mistake, but, as in 1941, it was done as a pre-emptive strike given that in 1812 it look very likely that Russia would re-enter the war on Britain's side. Spain was invaded because they revolted against the pro-French king, and then Britain got involved by sending forces there from Portugal. Italy did not exist at the time - Piedmont-Sardinia was an Austrian ally and was a threat that had to be dealt with. If Britain had made peace with Napoleon after the war of the fifth coalition there would have been no further wars, but Britain never accepted Napoleonic rule.
A note of error. Jean-Baptiste Kleber was never blamed for any "downfall" of the egyptian campaign. Napoleon was stranded after the British destroyed the entire french navy. There was no way he could retreat by ship with the remainder of his army, which is why he decided to elude the british on board a single vessel leaving kleber in command of any administration established in egypt as well as the remaining body of soldiers, of which most was sick. Kleber was assassinated by some egyptian fanatic leaving the french army no option but to surrender. It is true that Napoleon reacted to a rumour from reliable sources that some allied faction, most likely the Prussians, sought to murder him, but that would be somewhat difficult as he had a loyal guard on hand at all times. The main reason was that according to terms of his abdication, he was to receive an annual pay of several million francs to keep his tiny empire of Elba running, something he did quite well in the first few months of his stay there, paying out of his own pocket. The fee was never paid, nor did the allies have any intention of doing so.
Liked and subscribed. Excellent content, Ole sport!
Great content, suscribed
Joan of arc wouldn't have become a Saint and a symbol of France if only exiled. Burning alive a 19 years old girl made her immortal. Good move on Napoléon.
The kings around him weren't comfortable to see another king get executed, even if he was their arch enemy.
Well presented piece. Great voice too. Subbed!
That was very interesting, i leaned a lot. Thank you, i had wondered.
there is also the aspect of his own record...
but for the Duc of Enghien and the "chances of war", he never killed any sovereign or their family. Sure, some died on the battlefield, but that was fair game. Also, given how many hardcore military personel that were still faithful to him, it would have been a nightmare to quench the fires of the French guerrilla... And Wellington witnessed first hand what guerrilla did in Spain to the imperial army
I think people overestimate how loved Napoleon was by the French people in 1815. They were tired of war, conscription, and most of all, legalized theft of goods by French troops to feed the Army. Unemployed French veterans were also roaming the countryside behaving like bandits, along with French deserters and draft dodgers. Which is why Wellington made a point to hang any British soldier caught looting, raping, pillaging, or deserting. This is why the British Army were welcomed by people waving the Bourbon flag when they marched into France (the Prussians not so much due to the looting, raping and pillaging).
I always wondered about this, nice video!
Always wondered the same thing thanks for the information.
I really want to see the look on every European Monarch's face the moment they heard Napoleon escaped Elba and he's now the emperor again
He was more on timeout than disposed lol
They face have look same like chicken when face Wolf
I mean its pretty simple if they executed Bonaparte they would most certainly feared for there own lives if a rebellion was to occur in there respective nations no leader will put another leader to death because he doesn't want the same fate
Yes, killing Napoleon could have made him a martyr for a lot of French people, but for a lot of Italian and Polish people as well. Russians, Austrians, and Prussians shurely didn't wanted that.
Hope you get more subs! Great content.
amazing video, thanks :D
Short answer: they didn't want a martyr
Yep.
For victors in war, executing defeated popular rulers like Napoleon I violates long standing protocol. Even executing relatively unpopular rulers like Kaiser Wilhelm II (no longer popular by November 1918) violates protocol. Such executions are generally thought to create more problems for the conquering victors than they solve.
Thus even the Soviet tyrants did not execute Imre Nagy or Alexander Dubcek after invading Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 respectively. It is true that Nagy's Soviet backed successor Janos Kadar had Nagy executed in 1958 after two years of consolidating power. But it is almost certain that the Soviets gave Kadar that choice. And the Soviets would have held Kadar personally responsible had that backfired. Fortunately for Kadar it did not backfire.
The main exception to the protocol against killing overthrown rulers is for domestic revolutions. Thus King Louis XVI and Tsar Nicholas II were executed following the French and Russian Revolutions respectively. But even Stalin waited many years before having his defeated rival Leon Trotsky killed. He waited until 1940 long after he felt it was no longer risky to have Trotsky assassinated in exile in Mexico. Even deposed Soviet leaders Georgy Malenkov and Nikita Khrushchev were demoted in 1955 and 1964 respectively, not executed. It is pretty certain though that those who deposed and demoted Malenkov and Khrushchev (including Khrushchev in Malenkov's case) would have been executed had their plans to depose them failed.
I would even go so far as to state that but for their roles in notorious crimes against humanity even Adolf Hitler and Hideki Tojo wouldn't have needed to fear execution. Only the Nazi genocide led Hitler to commit suicide and only genocide by Imperial Japan led Tojo to unsuccessfully attempt suicide before eventually being executed. Benito Mussolini was shot by Italian Communists who then hung him and his mistress upside down to be dismembered by an angry mob. But in Mussolini's case it was otherwise unlikely that Mussolini would have faced execution even as a junior partner in Adolf Hitler's genocide.
French Nazi collaborator ruler Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain, generally known as Philippe Pétain, Marshal Pétain and sometimes The Old Marshal, was not executed. French President Charles de Gaulle commuted Pétain's sentence to life in prison. That is ironic since Pétain's Nazi collaborator regime had sentenced de Gaulle in 1940 to death in absentia. Pétain's deputy, Pierre Laval was less fortunate than Pétain and was in fact executed in 1945.
Pertain was left holding the bag. Someone had to sign the surrender. Like General Robert E. Lee.
It really puts into perspective the modern day U.S murders of both Saddam and Ghaddafi.
I visited the Museum in Mobile, Alabama, several years ago. One impressive item that I found on display was the 'Death Mask' of Napolean Bonaparte. I don't recall learning 'why' or how his 'Death Mask' wound up there, except Mobile's earliest days were governed by the French. I don't recall the years during their reign. Still, I want to go back to Mobile to study other items on display. And to see if Napolean's Death Mask is still on display.
Excellent presentation. Thank you.
Very fascinating video as are many of the learned comments from viewers. Years ago I heard that the term "bogey man" for a scary man was actually "boney man" and coined by the Brits to refer to Napoleon when they were fearing an invasion of the island. Is this a true story?
That's a breathtaking painting by David. I don't know why modern art isn't as awe inspiring
We have photos and videos now
Artists are like philosophers, they build on top of precedent piers work. Art at this time was academic and religious, things had to look glorious and divine. Then we had some genius free thinker who led multiple revolution from the subject to the way it was presented. Search for some art history on realism, impressionism, surealism, cubism, abstraction, etc.
Well possibly postmodernism, subjective and relativist values, decline of religion and meaning. As someone that believes in irrepressible objective reality, and axiomatic human nature, there are just some things that 'hit us' harder than others. I.e. The passion narrative as fresco vs a twerking tik tok compilation. Modernity doesn't have to be awful, it's just too many people have allowed it to be, we're all implicated in the enervation of meaning, purpose and traditional belonging.
Good video!
What's the music used during the "Why they didn't kill him" sequence please ?
Damn, you are talking about me
❤
Hey, a fun sized [Corsican] guy
After what happened to Napoleon, you have to wonder why Hitter ever considered invading Russia.
.... Because Hitler lived in the 20th century and in his mind the Germans had crushed Russia in WW1, while France held on till the bitter end. Then in ww2, the Germans beat the French fairly quickly, the same people that had held on for four years who hitler had personally seen the tenacity of in ww1, while Russia was at least in theory less powerfull than they were during ww1 (in practice more powerfull but in theory since they didn't have a large amount of the most prosperous regions of Russia pre-1914 and the nazi's spy agencies were dogshit they thought it was less powerfull.)
Meaning that for all the deserved hatred he gets, thinking he could defeat the soviets wasn't really that strange. Additionally, there were moments, especially early on in the german-soviet war where the germans had a chance at victory. Said chance lessened as time went on and a negotiated peace between germany and any of its enemies became less and less likely, but early on they had a chance.
Technology had made war very different by then. No European power had the logistical capability to support an army as far away as Moscow in 1812. As it turned out Germany didn't in 1941 but it was a very close-run thing, and if they'd had access to more oil they very well might have done it. Also Napoleon's invasion was on an extremely narrow front, leaving his supply train extremely vulnerable to raids from the flanks, which is what destroyed his army as much as winter. By 1941 armies were an order of magnitude larger and while Germany still had trouble with partisans, it could secure a much broader front and not have the exposed flanks Napoleon had.
Napoleon was a genius Hitler was not !
Because he was an idiot, Napoleon had an ego, but he was an actual general, Hitler had an ego and he thought he was a general.
probably didnt care thats why. he was obsessed with shit that doesnt matter, therefore why he and his goons lost so badly.
What is that fur piece that goes around the shoulders that is on what appears to be a coronation robe at 0:23?
What’s the classical music in the background ?
He wasn't defying the wind. The wind was at his back.
If Germany had been treated like they treated Napoleon after WW1, Hitler and WW2 would have never happened and the Soviet Union would not have occupied Easter Europe for decades.
Bismarck was treated much better than Napoleon was
@@miki09876 Considering that Bismarck died in 1899 he didn't have much to do with WW1, so I'm not quite sure what you're talking about.
Ah yes. Exile Germany to the middle of the Pacific Ocean. That'll teach em to. Never start another war. Especially one that was really caused by Austria.
Kaiser wilhelm wasn’t executed either. The treaty of versailles was harsh but it wasn’t out of the ordinary for treaties at the time. Ottoman Empire and Austro-hungarian empire suffered much harsher treaties.
@@theholyinquisition389 ahhh brain fart. Meant Kaiser Wilhelm, of course. Thanks for catching that.
Great video 👍
What's the opening piece of classical music?
I don't think this was unusual, there were so many instances in Indian colonial history, British arrested the local king and didn't kill them. Killing was only when the king was unpopular among his people.
The judge: I know what he did was wrong, but it could've been worse. He could've stolen some bread.
Great video
You also loved him when you hear him speak in his corsican accent when/during a military campaign.
Imagine if they killed Napoleon...
Damn, that would be chaos
he would be a martyr and europe would be fcked!
@@marshalsoult3860 that, and then europe speaks french.
therefore, in an alternate timeline, the memri tv meme becomes " *english* is a waste of time " instead of french.
@@Aldiyawak america would still speak english and it is nearly as big as europe
@@marshalsoult3860 he was unpopular when he lost
Napoleon was very unpopular by the time he lost
Great video for sharing.
Fun fact: Napoleon's father was attorney at law. 👍 Maybe that's the answer to why they didn't kill him.
😁
also the Duke Of Wellington refused to kill him since he respected him alot
Will he sue them from the grave?
The comments sections in history channels are always so informative and interesting to read.
Excellent video.
Marshal Blucher certainly wanted to execute him but I think Gneisenau his chief of staff would have dissuaded him. If Napoleon had been captured by hard core French royalists, they may have executed him. Napoleon was popular mainly with the Army. Many Frenchmen were furious that his wars had cost the lives of over a million Frenchmen with nothing gained. The French accepted the return of the Bourbons without too much of a fuss but later overthrew them as being too reactionary.
This is what is still causing tension in Nigeria system, killing a ruler, since first military coupe . the country is yet to settle from its mistake.
In that country, it was rather the killing of unarmed civilians from a section of the country that is causing the unending tension. A clear case of a crime against humanity. Many French who participated in the ensuing war as secret military advisers to the Biafrans or as humanitarian workers with Médecins sans frontières are still alive. Their tale is that of horror and soulless inhumanity upended by a clear, publicly stated central government's policy to STARVE everybody in the secessionist province including the children to death. That genocide caused and is still causing a psychic trauma in all Nigerians then and those born after. The little value Nigerians clearly place on human lives today comes precisely from those beastly mistakes.
Excellente video, merci
does anyone know the music that is being played in the background?
You earned a sub. Don't get how you only have 20 subs.
Thank you. Well you got to start somewhere I suppose, hopefully more will give the channel a chance
@@SeekHistory indeed. Good luck man (:
@@SeekHistory you earned yourself a sub 👍
I read the real reason Napoleon was kept alive was because he still had influence in France, and for the British Napoleon was the weapon they could use against any other French government. After all, Napoleon was able to kick out the restored Bourbons.
Great video. Love from Spain
excellent animation and facts, just fix the audio as its slightly off
He identified with the people and not with the land. He should have focused on assimilating people and not on land. However, assimilation should not be by force but by enticement.
Any person living in a land absorbed by the French Empire became a French citizen. Note "citizen" not a "subject".
@@artemisp.folglemeyer this was because only the citizens could serve in the army, so Napoleon could have an incredible number of men at disposal, in Russia only the"bulk" of his forces were french, there were italians, bavarese, saxons danish and so on, also a LOT of polish.
@@alessiodecarolis Am well aware of the composition of the Grand Armee'. Your explanation seems to be your own, as my readings have never said this was the reason citizenship was granted.
The various European governments during the 18th and 19th centuries had a “ gentlemen’s agreement” that execution of defeated head of state was in poor taste and might set a bad precedent. We note that Germany’s Kaiser Whilheim abdicated to another country following WW I defeat and peaceably lived out the remainder of his life. The Russian Bolsheviks executed the Romanoff family, which was a catalyst for much destruction and wrangling for power. This strategy of isolating the defeated advisory might have been beneficial in Iraq. If the defeated Saddam Hussein was tryed at The Hague he would have likely been sentenced to life in prison and perhaps not served as a catalyst for the 10 year war in Iraq.
The people in Iraq would have fought the American occupation regardless. People had long since fallen out of love with Saddam
The music at the very beginning?
The choice of background music, 1812 Overture, was ironic and iconic 😋
I still don't understand what Napoleon did so wrong .....sounds like others were just jealous of him and should of gave him more men .....and maybe he would of won he seemed a better person than who took over
Rule #1: it's simply, Kings don't kill kings.
Other monarchs were afraid of killing Napoleon will set an example for future conflicts.
Napoleon wasn't a king. He wasn't even a peer. Louis XVIII would certainly have executed him if his forces had captured him.
He was emperor
Nice video
Hey, Your video is very good! But it have some flaw, the volume is very low for my phone even though it's in mid volume. Hope you can increase your voice volume in the future!
Thank you for the feedback, I really apreciate it 🙂
Probably to avoid pissing population off. I was right.
My enemies are many. My equals are none.
Glad someone answered this.
Good explanation
During the French Revolution, the revolution executed their Royalty.
THIS was unacceptable to the other Kingdoms of Europe. And thus they went to war against France.
However, Napoleon time and time again proved he was ROYALTY material through his military victories.
Executing a Royalty is not to the interest of the rest of Europe.
They poisoned him instead of direct execution
Good. All of his kind should be eliminated, before they kill again.
Stimulating and closely argued. Thank you. Chess players among us will see a short hand illustration or at least find a metaphor in all this.
@ 9:06 in that Alps painting Bonaparte isn't "defying the wind" but quite the opposite; he "has the wind at his back."