What was his fucking problem?

what was his fucking problem?

Manlet

Manletto

Looking like Richard Sperncer in that portrait

When he went to be crowned emperor, Napoleon allegedly spoke in Italian to his brother: if dad could see us now!

That's pretty cute desu.

>Napoleon allegedly spoke in Italian to his brother

In Corsican*
Italian and Corsican are as different as Spanish and Portuguese

He wanted to bring prosperity and peace to Europe.

>Italian and Corsican are as different as Spanish and Portuguese
So virtually the same?

average height

that pic is seriously disturbing me

>spanish and portuguese are the same

'no'
t. spanish speaker

such a smug bastard

...

not even close

The M. de Lafayette grew angry when Napoleon's brother - Prince Lucien accused the Deputies of betraying Bonaparte.

>We have followed your brother to the sands of Africa--to the deserts of Russia: the bones of Frenchmen, scattered in every region, bear witness to our fidelity!

Pretty easy to idolise him now, I'm on the British side desu but having just finished the meme Roberts Biography I must say I'm a little bit fond of the cuckold manlet Corsican parvenu "just fuck my shit up and sprinkle on some arsnic" Rascal - though there are millions of perfectly good reasons to hate him.
He seems to have just wanted to be spoken of in the same breath as Ceaser.

He had an enormous wlll to power, and had the tools to realize it, the problem is that he loved battle too much, and did not consolidate his Empire.

If he was a little las battle-thirsty his empire would've lasted thousands of years.

>would've lasted thousands of years.
Not in Europe

His power was confined to the continent, checked in the west by the Brit and the East by the Rus. He was the master of Europe, but a prisoner there. The collapse of that Empire was Inevitable.

THEY CLEARLY ARE CLOSE LANGUAGES YOU DIFFICULT TWAT

In the long term, assuming he wouldnt attack Russia, not really
England wouldnt have matched all of europes potential naval construction power, and Russia would Never be able to mount a matching army

>His power was confined to the continent,

The more powerful continent of the world, where everything important was happening
Brits on Veeky Forums always try to make people believe that the rest of the world was as important back then as it's now, but that's pure bullshit
In 1800, Europe was more relevant than the rest of the world combined
It's Brits who were prisoners outside of it, in their vast seas and plains of nothingness, not Napoleon inside of it

Mads as Napoleon for a biopic when?

French autism

Classic hot-headed Italian

>checked in the west by the Brit and the East by the Rus
Literally nothing thus


If it weren't for the Winter you would be under French"s boots

>le Russian winter may-may

>le kept in check may may


Napoleon nearly conquered the whole Europe unhindered

Britain literally defeated a Franco-Spanish battle fleet with 1,700 casualties to 14,000.
Assuming he wouldn't attack Russia? What like exactly how he did -disastrously, sending the greatest army hitherto assembled to an abattoir?
This is a crazy counter-factual but I suppose you're right, If napoleon didn't behave like himself, If Russia and the UK capitulated to him, and if somehow he managed to solicit the unwavering support of Spain, Austria and Prussia (inconceivably ridiculous) maybe we'd all be speaking French? I don't know.

The UK was by far the most industrialized country in the world, wealthier than the more populous France, and able to subsidize more than 30 nations in a coalition against Napoleon. Napoleon tried, and failed dismally, to isolate the Brits economically. Tsar Alexander was the most powerful European Monarch, a good amount of Europes wealth would have been as a result of these two nations.

Economically China and India were vastly more relevant then, than they are now. I've highlighted the Napoleonic Era for you. I don't know what you mean by plains of nothingness, London was the capital of the World, the UK was a more significant place then, in terms of culture and innovation than France - which, but for the Tuileries was a land populated by shoe-less fools fighting over bread, Napoleon was fascinated with the UK, India & China (see his Exile on St. Helena.).
How were Brits prisoners outside of Europe when their blockades weren't reciprocated? the Brits could land on the continent when they liked - and they did (see Waterloo).

>If it weren't for the Winter
>If it weren't for the British Navy
>If it weren't for the English Channel
>If it weren't for Egyptian Heat
>If it weren't for the Cossacks
>If it weren't for Bernadotte
>If it weren't for Ney
>If it weren't for Talleyrand
>If it weren't for Metternich
>If it weren't for Blücher
>If it weren't for neglecting to bring a balloon corp to Waterloo
>If it weren't for vertical impairment
>If it weren't for Cuckoldry
>If it weren't for Corsican Autism
>If it weren't for France's finite population

>If it weren't for the stifling confines of reality that all humans have to contend with...


Then maybe, just maybe Napoleon wouldn't have died on a rat infested rock in the middle of the Atlantic with arsenic in his hair - and instead, we'd all be singing La Marseillaise.

...

almost everything went has planned

>delta x of 1000, 500, 100, 100, 120, 50, 43, 37, 23, 30
This graph really rankles my rustles.

Tsar Alexander could barely fight Napoleon, and your saying he was the fucking strongest?

I know this is hard for you British mutts to accept but your army is ass it doesn't matter if they could land anywhere if Napoleon didn't go to Russia British landings would just be Viking raids v2

Have you ever listened to someone speak Portuguese?

That shit is bananas

Napoleon was a great man who wanted to spread the revolution, the reason he went down as bad is because of monarchs feeling threatened by his presence and forming the coalition against him. Hurr durr manlet!!

thank fuck (((napoleon))) lost

>I know this is hard for you British mutts to accept but your army is ass it doesn't matter if they could land anywhere if Napoleon didn't go to Russia British landings would just be Viking raids v2
I'm not suggesting Britain had a better army than France, it would be good if I was though wouldn't it? Then you'd have a point.
Britain did have it's advantages though, and utilised them excellently, a superior navy, diplomatic service, economy, etc.
Also Napoleon was there at Waterloo you know? It's a shame Wellington was too though.
>Tsar Alexander could barely fight Napoleon, and your saying he was the fucking strongest?
This is genuinely hilarious, I'll break it down for you again shall I? This pic is what it looks like when napoleon leads his armies into Russia.

AND this is what it looks like when Tsar Alexander leads his armies into France.
It's not my opinion that Tsar Alexander was the most powerful European monarch, it's consensus. If i'm the British mutt you say I am, wouldn't I be clinging to the notion that George III was #1, after-all Napoleon did surrender to him twice.

I can speak Spanish but on day I saw a Spaniard speaking to a patient.

I thought I had completely forgotten how to speak Spanish until she told me he was Brazilian.

Portugese sounds Spanish but is different. They couldn't communicate effectively enough for proper patient care.

>could barely fight Napoleon

He literally evacuated and burned his own capital

read a fucking book

t. Pierre de Frog

>nearly

The Russians "won" the 1812 invasiion out of pure luck and because of Napoleon'd fuck ups, not because they were "strong".
Also, the 6th coalition came many times close from defeat despite being composed of three major european powers (Russia, Austria and Prussia)

>Tsar Alexander was the most powerful European monarch
If by "powerful" you mean totalitarian, then that's true indeed
Dude still owned fucking serfs in the 19th century
No wonder the soviet revolution happened not long after

>The Russians "won" the 1812 invasiion out of pure luck

fairly certain Corsican is the closest relative to Latin

Why does it make you "maximum butthurt"?
It's just the truth, look it up

See

Looks like you forgot luck in your list
Add it up

Well, as Tolstoy said, it wasn't that he was a genius in any way or lucky, it was that he believed in himself, in his implicit destiny and his "star" so much that he was able to accomplish all that he did, going from a Corsican peasant with no french to being the emperor of France and one of the greatest men of that century, in the end, he just believed his own hype too much and attempting to go to war with Russia again was the start of that downfall

Tolstoy was a retard
Napoleon was both a genius and lucky
You can be as confident as you want, but if you don't have intelligence and the right circumstances, you'll fail

Get off Veeky Forums lindy

Winter isn't in may you fag

>That shit is bananas
B-A-N-A-N-A-S

Inbred monarchs.Napoopan did literally nothing wrong.

DUDE POPCULTURE LMAOOOOOOOO XDDDD

kek, I know right?
How can you simultaneously win something
>out of pure luck
>AND because of Napoleon's fuck ups?

>tfw you're so lucky, you can just flip a coin and it lands on leading the first force to successfully capture Paris in nearly 400 years.

>If by "powerful" you mean totalitarian
Well I kind of did, George III had immense theoretical power but he was emasculated by parliament, and his authority was further checked in the regency era. Tsar Alexandra was not subject to the same restraints as most European monarchs - and he had an enormous empire, and he was literally worshipped by many of his subjects.

In the correspondence between Alexander and Bonaparte, Bonaparte often extols autocracy where Alexander questions it. Alexander wanted to reform serfdom, this was one area in which he was able to be stymied by the nobility. But let's forget that, this is a "let's pretend Napoleon didn't aspire to be a totalitarian" episode, isn't it?

Even the most liberal apologists for Napoleon concede that he massacred thousands of prisoners in his custody for a crime that he himself would later commit (forgoing an oath of surrender) and that Napoleon pursued genocidal policies in Haiti. I'm going to abstain from judging him for either of these actions, but let's not pretend he was the people's champion.

One thing that does annoy me about him is that he gave the sons of the fallen at Leipzig 300 francs (I approve) but his divorcee, guilty of several infidelities, 3,000,000 francs annually! He can't of cared that much about even his men if he insults them like this.

So are you the user that thinks China, India, and Tsar Alexander were not relevant in the Napoleonic era?
>It's just the truth, look it up

The Roberts biography is good idk why its a meme.

And even Lafayette's quote is a betrayal imo. Napoleon only started the war in spain and none of the others.

Lafayette and Jefferson wrote all the time circlejerking their hatred of Napoleon for not being a republican good boi like they were.

Lafayette is being subversive and trying to blame the wars started by the other powers on Napoleon.

>This is genuinely hilarious, I'll break it down for you again shall I? This pic is what it looks like when napoleon leads his armies into Russia.
Burning crops and ruining the lives of your people for decades to come is not good strategy it's being fucking insane.

Not the guy you're replying to but

Get fucked frog

>How can you simultaneously win something
>out of pure luck
>AND because of Napoleon's fuck ups?

Are you retarded?
Obviously because Napoleon's fuck ups didn't result from Russian skill/cleverness and thus were just luck to them
When you're incompetent but your enemy makes one major mistake and loses (not even to you but to the elements) because of this, you "won" out of luck

>tfw you're so lucky, you can just flip a coin and it lands on leading the first force to successfully capture Paris in nearly 400 years.

That's pretty much what happened
Alexander and the Russians were utter garbage, but Napoleon made a wrong decision which resulted in his entire army dying in the winter and opened the road to Paris without the Russians having to do anything
Kinda if during the Pacific War, the entire US Navy had sunk in a typhoon and Japan had won by default
Pure luck

I liked it too, he was pretty fair, clearly a bit of a napoleonoboo, but nothing heinous like the pseuds in this thread.
In part I agree but I can see why people who fought to establish a republic would object to some random Corsican larping as Ceaser.
Also Napoleon could have attempted diplomacy that didn't involve artillery more often, it's not as though he was forced into the sands of Africa or deserts of Russia, he went because he was good at waging offensive wars, and when that is your forte I can see why, but I can also see why this didn't arouse the trust of his neighbours.

>Your enemy is the greatest general since antiquity, his invasion of your country is the most notorious military disaster in human history
>not good strategy

I'll concede the war was taxing... It was a war. Do you think Napoleon didn't ruin the lives of his people? France went from being Europes pre-eminent power to what? #4?

I don't know how frogs maintain this cognitive dissonance
>Napoleon is a preternatural genius, first rate strategist and god of war.
>Napoleon was not aware that it gets cold in Russia

>Kinda if during the Pacific War, the entire US Navy had sunk in a typhoon and Japan had won by default

It's nothing like this, It wasn't some blind act of god, If a freak blizzard froze every soldier under Napoleons command the moment they crossed the Neman I'd agree with you but that didn't happen. The Russians used effective Guerrilla tactics, harassed supply lines, denied his men and horses the ability to forage or to fight a pitched battle. It was an extremely effective way to conduct a war against Napoleon.

I suppose, ceteris paribus, If Tsar Alexander had met the Grande Armee in some hospitable German field of-course I can humour the notion that Napoleon would have made short work of him - which is why Napoleon's invasion of Russia is an exhibition of irreconcilable stupidity.

These are his FIRST TWO military maxims:

>Maxim I. The frontiers of states are either large rivers, or chains of mountains, or deserts. Of all these obstacles to the march of an army, the most difficult to overcome is the desert; mountains come next, and broad rivers occupy the third place.
>Maxim II. In forming the plan of a campaign, it is requisite to foresee everything the enemy may do, and to be prepared with the necessary means to counteract it. Plans of campaign may be modified, ad infinitum, according to circumstances -- the genius of the general, the character of the troops, and the topography of the theater of action.

>Pure luck
unbelievable.

>Kinda if during the Pacific War, the entire US Navy had sunk in a typhoon and Japan had won by default
You mean like the M*ngols?

>not good strategy

On the short term maybe
On the long term, Alexander's willingness to doom hundred thousands of his peasants to starvation just to avoid abiding by a trade agreement is one of the reasons that caused the communist revolution a century later
Had Russian emperors not had such disdain for the lives of their people, it likely wouldn't have occured

>Napoleon is a preternatural genius, first rate strategist and god of war.
>Napoleon was not aware that it gets cold in Russia

It's quite easy to understand
Napoleon was a genius when it came to how warfare was waged by europeans in his era
He absolutly couldn't predict Alexander's insane move of burning half of his country and sentencing a huge chunk of his own people to death by starvation for what wasn't even a total war (remember that the 1812 Invasion wasn't about annexion, it was about trade terms).

Warfare back then wasn't like in WW2, it was some big scale chess game in which the defeated country would recognize defeat and make small concessions to the winner
No one could imagine a monarch would rather destroy half of his country that do that (and Alexander's extreme behavior can indeed be explained by a mental illness that made him convinced that Nappy was the antichrist)

This is a different conversation though, I don't even know why you would make this point, the Tsar would have alienated millions of people had he allowed Russia to fall into the hands of a godless excommunicated Corsican parvenu, who not long ago had considered "taking the truban".
If the Tsar surrendered and joined the continental system, unwilling to make sacrifices, then he may have solicited the enmity of the nationalists in Russia and may have been overthrown by a regime less sympathetic to liberalism and revolutionary sentiment.
This is all speculation though, to argue the Tsar's strategy against Napoleons invasion was
>not good
is bizarre though.

>He absolutly couldn't predict Alexander
>Maxim II. In forming the plan of a campaign, it is requisite to foresee everything the enemy may do
d-don't fight him then?

I've got to stop posting here, this is stressing me out, I didn't so much as imply that war in the Napoleonic era was "like in WW2". It's pretty generous to call an attempt to strong arm the Russian empire into the continental system, coerce the implementation of Napoleonic ideals, liberate, at-least in part, Poland, and reduce Russia to the status of a French satellite as
>about trade terms
You think Napoleon marched 700,000 men over the Neman entirely so that he might convince the Tsar to impose a tariff on the British?

>Russians burn down Moscow after losing a battle
>All because they didn't want to oblige with a trade agreement

How do you mean?

Corsican is a dialect of medieval Tuscan, so it's actually pretty damn close to standard Italian.
t. southern Corsican speaker

Mads would be awesome as Napoleon provided he could fake a french accent really well

he was too baest

I think it's about time a POC or a women played napoleon. He was an effeminate Corsican after-all. I'm thinking America Ferrara.

Also as we know from Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, most of the officers were actually not white men. It's about time the next napoleon biopic takes a leaf out of battlefield 1's book and depicts the grande armee as they actually were

>GDP
>1000s-1800s

What meme is this?

Secondly
>muh England so super important

Fuck off you stupid cunt. Most of the "important" countries that you mentioned were closed markets filled with poor peasants and secondly the only people buying shitty British goods were Europeans.

He didn't have someone with a talent in logistics that equaled his talent for strategy. But to be fair his strategic principal stood until WW1, or the US civil war if you were an American strategist. And as it portrays to marketing it still stands.

>closed markets filled with poor peasants
What is the continental system?

The figures were produced by Oxford University in collaboration with the Maddison Project, historical estimation pertaining to economies are fraught with problems but I don't see you producing better figures, it certainly seemed a suitable remonstrance for this Borat tier meme that France greatest country in the world, all other countries run by little girls.

> the only people buying shitty British goods were Europeans.
Did I say otherwise? Not that this is correct, revenues from opium sales to China were skyrocketing!
>shitty British goods
Is funny though, what was so shit about them?

>India was a closed market
What is the EIC?

I'd say Napoleon was a pretty good Diplomat. In 1815 he gave his first address back from Elba in a red diplomatic uniform instead of his military uniform.

He did attempt diplomacy before Russia appealing to the Tsar's personal friendship with him almost all the way until Moscow. He didn't know the Tsar hated him ideologically.

He wasn't in a position to in Egpyt as he was only a general and not a member of the government.

Corsican Noble* Napoleon Di Bonaparte was his true name, though he hid it to fit in with republicans in france.

>pretending Italy isn't full of these meme dialects

Sicilian and Neapolitan are certainly more distant to Italian than Corsican is.