Was it a just war?

youtube.com/watch?v=bIDvyGifRE0

>Reinstate the bourbon monarchy
FTFY
Napoleon was literally a monarch. They just wanted a weak, pliant, bourbon that wouldn't cause a fuss or upset the balance of power.

- Napoleonic (Well, supposed to be napoleonic, some fancy bird painted this after asking her husband to have the Scots greys charge towards her for her artistic stuff.)
- Crimean war. Battle of Balaclava I think, Russian cavalry never got this close due to some sweet, sweet, Minie' ball and p1853 Enfield fire.

Are we on about the Napoleonic wars or the Crimean war?

>t. the eternal anglo
a just war is not defined by it's victors

>(Well, supposed to be napoleonic, some fancy bird painted this after asking her husband to have the Scots greys charge towards her for her artistic stuff.)
And Gibb wasn't in the Crimea, what's your point?

Are we talking about the Napoleonic Wars or the Crimean war?

I was just throwing in some general knowledge incase people didn't know.

highlander uniforms are the best.

A war where Albion is not participant

Monsieur Buonaparte was a warmongering dictator bent on domination europe, that is why it was so easy to get European states to unite against him

You just suck at getting others to do the work for you.

what's the bet that that pepe was made by a heritageamerican?

The war you win.

There is no real difference between the two wars. In both cases the French were once again defeated by Glorious Britain.
Also the tactics and weaponry were very similiar because they happened so close to each other.

ironic shitposting is still shitposting you absolute wasteman

In todays view probably not, because seen isolated it was a war of aggression of much of europe against a country, that was not threatening anyone and has already signaled its acceptance of the new order in erurope that was drawn at Vienna.

Seen from the contemporary viewpoint and as part of the whole Napoleonic Wars, it was an extremely clear case of a just war, because Napoleon was seen as
-ursurper who disposed the legal monarchy
-the main cause of all the death and destruction in europe
-someone who would without any doubt soon try to change the balance of power once again and restart the whole wars anew.

Disposing him immediately again was in their view the only right thing to do and his ultimate fall ushered into the longest period of peace and harmony among the Great Powers that europe had seen at that point of time

this, Napoleon didn't do anything wrong except stand up to an actual Jewish banker conspiracy, then fight off 7 coalitions of degenerate monarchies that oppressed their own peoples and retreated from the Enlightenment

i wouldn't agree on that point to the fact that he broke multiple peace treaty's.

>that is why it was so easy to get European states to unite against him

Pretty sure it's because he was a commoner became emperor and other royal families were butthurt about it

Yes. Napoleon was just like Hitler.

More like eternally butthurt m*narchists kept declaring war

He wasnt a commoner in the first place,perhaps it was because he was constantly invading other countries and the coalitions were a prudent defensive method.

I always thought the charge of the light brigade was supposed to be a textbook example of military incompetence. Why the fuck do autist romanticize it?

For the English. Only good guys fighting for liberty.

That's a rather silly quote considering the Germans didn't stand a chance against said idealism till Napoleon withered his army away in Russia

what is not a just war?

see I can do it too jackass.

A Europe dominated by Napoleon was a threat to the balance of power, and therefore Britain's independence and system of government

>They just wanted a weak, pliant, bourbon that wouldn't cause a fuss or upset the balance of power.
Literally any Bourbon from Louis XIV to Louis XVI.

>That's a rather silly quote considering the Germans didn't stand a chance against said idealism till Napoleon withered his army away in Russia
this