If only Napoleon was French President

Senju Bean

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
448
He would know how to deal with ISIS.

He would just take over the middle east and put them under the French flag, just like he did with the rest of Europe during his era.

If only he was born in this era.
 

Power Bottom

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Jun 11, 2014
Messages
15,599
Reaction score
985
Napoleon was a savage.

And your troll threads aren't cute
 

Marin

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2015
Messages
4,796
Reaction score
503
Like he did with Russia?

Seriously, trolls these days...
 

Babadook

Banned
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
317
Reaction score
76
Yeah right.

Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt in 1798 and fought against the Ottomans to establish a French presence in the Middle East, with the ultimate dream of linking with Tippoo Sahib in India. Although the long period of Franco-Ottoman friendship was now over,
Napoleon I still claimed great respect for Islam, and appealed to the long history of friendly relations between the Ottoman Empire and France:
"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion: do not believe it! Answer that I have come to restore your rights and punish the usurpers, and that, more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet and the Koran... Is it not we who have been through the centuries the friends of the Sultan?"
— Napoleon to the Egyptians.

Britain took the opportunity to ally with the Ottoman Empire in order to repel Napoleon's invasion, intervening military as during the Siege of Acre with Admiral William Sidney Smith in 1799, or under Ralph Abercromby at the Battle of Abukir in 1801. By 1802, the French were completely vanquished in the Middle-East.
Napoleon had toppled the Mamluk beys, the effective rulers of Egypt under nominal Ottoman suzerainty, but still raised the French flag side-by-side with the Ottoman banner throughout the Egyptian territory, claiming his love for Islam, and saying that they were saving the Ottomans from the Mamluks.

Soon however, in 1803, France and Great Britain were again at war, and Napoleon went to great lengths to try to convince the Ottoman Empire to fight against Russia in the Balkans and join his anti-Russian coalition. On its side, Russia vied for Ottoman favour, and succeeded in signing a Treaty of Defensive Alliance in 1805.

Napoleon continued his efforts to win the Ottoman Empire to his cause. He sent General Horace Sebastiani as envoy extraordinary. Napoleon promised to help the Ottoman Empire recover lost territories.He wrote to the Sultan:

"Are you blind to your own interests - have you ceased to reign? (...) If Russia has an army of 15,000 men at Corfu, do you think that it is directed against me? Armed vessels have the habit of hastening to Constantinople. Your dynasty is about to descend into oblivion... Trust only your true friend, France"
— Letter from Napoleon to Selim III.

In February 1806, following Napoleon's remarkable victory in the Battle of Austerlitz in December 1805 and the ensuing dismemberment of the Holy Roman Empire, Selim III finally refused to ratify the Russian and British alliances, and recognized Napoleon as Emperor, formally opting for an alliance with France "our sincere and natural ally", and war with Russia and Britain.

In a final reversal however, Napoleon I finally vanquished Russia at the Battle of Friedland in July 1807. The alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire was maintained, and a peace settlement was brokered between Russia and the Ottomans, but the territories the Ottomans had been promised (Moldavia and Wallachia) through the Treaty of Tilsit were never returned, although the Ottomans themselves had complied with their part of the agreement by moving their troops south of the Danube. Faced with betrayal by Russia, and the failure of France to have the agreement enforced, the Ottoman Empire, now ruled by Mahmud II, finally signed on 5 January 1809 a Treaty of Peace, Commerce and Secret Alliance with Great Britain, which was now at war with both France and Russia.] In 1812, through the Treaty of Bucharest, the Ottoman Empire and Russia agreed to make peace, just as Russia was anxious to liberate this southern front in anticipation of Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, with Russia keeping Bessarabia and the Ottomans regaining Wallachia and Moldavia. In the post-Napoleonic world, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the Ottoman Empire was still recognized as an essential part of the European status quo.



You must be registered for see images
 
Last edited:

Senju Bean

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
448
Like he did with Russia?

Seriously, trolls these days...

The Middle East has no snow. Besides, he would have learned from Hitlers mistake since a modern Napoleon would come after.
 

Babadook

Banned
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
317
Reaction score
76
He would know how to deal with ISIS.

He would just take over the middle east and put them under the French flag, just like he did with the rest of Europe during his era.

If only he was born in this era.
Bro, did you at least read what I quoted? He didn't just put the French flag there, he used the French flag side by side with the Ottoman one...So your very first premise is simply incorrect...

+ He didn't really achieve anything in the Midde East or North Africa, except for some meddling. In 4 yrs, the French were completely vanquished from the ME...

It kinda reminds me of the American's affair there...

Not to mention the French used to aid the Ottomans military-wise.

"A young artillery officer by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte was also to be sent to Constantinople in 1795 to help organize Ottoman artillery. He did not go, for just days before he was to embark for the Near East he proved himself useful to the Directory by putting down a Parisian mob in the whiff of grapeshot and was kept in France.
General Aubert-Dubayet with his Military Mission being received by the Grand Vizier in 1796, painting by Antoine-Laurent Castellan.

In 1796, General Aubert-Dubayet was sent to the Ottoman court with artillery equipment, and French artillerymen and engineers to help with the development of the Ottoman arsenals and foundries. Infantry and cavalry officers were also to train the Spahis and Janissaries, but they were frustrated by the opposition of the Janissaries."

Which is like the CIA training Al Quaida ...

But of course every analogy is claudicant so take it with a grain of salt.

So no, I don't think Napoleon could handle the Middle East today, just like he couldn't handle it 200 yrs ago. Notwithstanding that he was a genius. +I respect him for respecting islam xD
 

Caliburn

𝕷𝔢𝖔 𝕭𝔢𝖑𝔤𝖎𝔠𝖚𝔰
Supreme
Joined
Apr 6, 2009
Messages
20,944
Reaction score
4,197
You really have no idea about how history works, do you? You seem to be blurting out randomly hollow thoughts that pop up in your head without even thinking about them.

If Napoleon would have been born today, highly likely none of us would have ever heard of him as someone like Napoleon does not even remotely fit with the modern day society. The primary reason as why the people who became known throughout history became so known, are the circumstances they lived in. Even if you have the qualities to become the ruler of the world, if you do not have the circumstances with you, you will be lost like countless others in the anonymity of history. Just plucking out randomly historical figures from one time and placing them in another is not how history works.

Not to mention this entire idea is already completely absurd from the get-go. If Napoleon would have been born right now, the history as we know it would have been completely different as Napoleon played an extremely important part in European history and with extension world history. If you erase him from his original time, well then our current society could be something you can't even imagine. It's even possible there wouldn't be any ISIS in the first place if Napoleon hadn't existed in the first place.

The Middle East has no snow. Besides, he would have learned from Hitlers mistake since a modern Napoleon would come after.

A prime example as Hitler studied Napoleon to not repeat his mistakes. Without Napoleon, Hitler might have never become what he became. A modern Napoleon would potentially not exist.
 
Last edited:

Senju Bean

Sannin of the Scrolls 📜
Elite
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
5,133
Reaction score
448
You really have no idea about how history works, do you? You seem to be blurting out randomly hollow thoughts that pop up in your head without even thinking about them.

If Napoleon would have been born today, highly likely none of us would have ever heard of him as someone like Napoleon does not even remotely fit with the modern day society. The primary reason as why the people who became known throughout history became so known, are the circumstances they lived in. Even if you have the qualities to become the ruler of the world, if you do not have the circumstances with you, you will be lost like countless others in the anonymity of history. Just plucking out randomly historical figures from one time and placing them in another is not how history works.

Not to mention this entire idea is already completely absurd from the get-go. If Napoleon would have been born right now, the history as we know it would have been completely different as Napoleon played an extremely important part in European history and with extension world history. If you erase him from his original time, well then our current society could be something you can't even imagine. It's even possible there wouldn't be any ISIS in the first place if Napoleon hadn't existed in the first place.



A prime example as Hitler studied Napoleon to not repeat his mistakes. Without Napoleon, Hitler might have never become what he became. A modern Napoleon would potentially not exist.

Well, I'm saying that if the French had a guy like him for president, they'd be better off and ISIS would be crushed
 

YowYan

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
15,124
Reaction score
1,838
Napoleon? Didn't he lose a battle because the Rothschilds sabotaged him beforehand?
 

Dark Sonic

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
3,207
Reaction score
287
Bro, did you at least read what I quoted? He didn't just put the French flag there, he used the French flag side by side with the Ottoman one...So your very first premise is simply incorrect...

+ He didn't really achieve anything in the Midde East or North Africa, except for some meddling. In 4 yrs, the French were completely vanquished from the ME...

It kinda reminds me of the American's affair there...

Not to mention the French used to aid the Ottomans military-wise.

"A young artillery officer by the name of Napoleon Bonaparte was also to be sent to Constantinople in 1795 to help organize Ottoman artillery. He did not go, for just days before he was to embark for the Near East he proved himself useful to the Directory by putting down a Parisian mob in the whiff of grapeshot and was kept in France.
General Aubert-Dubayet with his Military Mission being received by the Grand Vizier in 1796, painting by Antoine-Laurent Castellan.

In 1796, General Aubert-Dubayet was sent to the Ottoman court with artillery equipment, and French artillerymen and engineers to help with the development of the Ottoman arsenals and foundries. Infantry and cavalry officers were also to train the Spahis and Janissaries, but they were frustrated by the opposition of the Janissaries."

Which is like the CIA training Al Quaida ...

But of course every analogy is claudicant so take it with a grain of salt.

So no, I don't think Napoleon could handle the Middle East today, just like he couldn't handle it 200 yrs ago. Notwithstanding that he was a genius. +I respect him for respecting islam xD

I remember hearing about Napoleon respecting Islam despite his savageness. It's kinda weird since he invaded Egypt.
 

Pumpkin Ninja

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,554
Reaction score
1,857
Yeah right.

Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Egypt in 1798 and fought against the Ottomans to establish a French presence in the Middle East, with the ultimate dream of linking with Tippoo Sahib in India. Although the long period of Franco-Ottoman friendship was now over,
Napoleon I still claimed great respect for Islam, and appealed to the long history of friendly relations between the Ottoman Empire and France:
"Peoples of Egypt, you will be told that I have come to destroy your religion: do not believe it! Answer that I have come to restore your rights and punish the usurpers, and that, more than the Mamluks, I respect God, his Prophet and the Koran... Is it not we who have been through the centuries the friends of the Sultan?"
— Napoleon to the Egyptians.

Britain took the opportunity to ally with the Ottoman Empire in order to repel Napoleon's invasion, intervening military as during the Siege of Acre with Admiral William Sidney Smith in 1799, or under Ralph Abercromby at the Battle of Abukir in 1801. By 1802, the French were completely vanquished in the Middle-East.
Napoleon had toppled the Mamluk beys, the effective rulers of Egypt under nominal Ottoman suzerainty, but still raised the French flag side-by-side with the Ottoman banner throughout the Egyptian territory, claiming his love for Islam, and saying that they were saving the Ottomans from the Mamluks.

Soon however, in 1803, France and Great Britain were again at war, and Napoleon went to great lengths to try to convince the Ottoman Empire to fight against Russia in the Balkans and join his anti-Russian coalition. On its side, Russia vied for Ottoman favour, and succeeded in signing a Treaty of Defensive Alliance in 1805.

Napoleon continued his efforts to win the Ottoman Empire to his cause. He sent General Horace Sebastiani as envoy extraordinary. Napoleon promised to help the Ottoman Empire recover lost territories.He wrote to the Sultan:

"Are you blind to your own interests - have you ceased to reign? (...) If Russia has an army of 15,000 men at Corfu, do you think that it is directed against me? Armed vessels have the habit of hastening to Constantinople. Your dynasty is about to descend into oblivion... Trust only your true friend, France"
— Letter from Napoleon to Selim III.

In February 1806, following Napoleon's remarkable victory in the Battle of Austerlitz in December 1805 and the ensuing dismemberment of the Holy Roman Empire, Selim III finally refused to ratify the Russian and British alliances, and recognized Napoleon as Emperor, formally opting for an alliance with France "our sincere and natural ally", and war with Russia and Britain.

In a final reversal however, Napoleon I finally vanquished Russia at the Battle of Friedland in July 1807. The alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire was maintained, and a peace settlement was brokered between Russia and the Ottomans, but the territories the Ottomans had been promised (Moldavia and Wallachia) through the Treaty of Tilsit were never returned, although the Ottomans themselves had complied with their part of the agreement by moving their troops south of the Danube. Faced with betrayal by Russia, and the failure of France to have the agreement enforced, the Ottoman Empire, now ruled by Mahmud II, finally signed on 5 January 1809 a Treaty of Peace, Commerce and Secret Alliance with Great Britain, which was now at war with both France and Russia.] In 1812, through the Treaty of Bucharest, the Ottoman Empire and Russia agreed to make peace, just as Russia was anxious to liberate this southern front in anticipation of Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, with Russia keeping Bessarabia and the Ottomans regaining Wallachia and Moldavia. In the post-Napoleonic world, at the 1815 Congress of Vienna, the Ottoman Empire was still recognized as an essential part of the European status quo.



You must be registered for see images
Nah, Napolean didn't seem to care for religion at all, most likely, he knew how important Islam was to the Middle East and gave lip-service in order to gain trust.

He was a politician, after-all.
 

Babadook

Banned
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
317
Reaction score
76
Nah, Napolean didn't seem to care for religion at all,
When did I claim he did? But using the word 'at all' is incorrect.

most likely, he knew how important Islam was to the Middle East and gave lip-service in order to gain trust.
I know, it's also in the wikipedia article if one bothers reading the whole thing (hence I put the link there *shrug*)

He was a politician, after-all.
So how does that contradict anything I said above? (My whole point was that Napoleon did fail in the M.E. as history attests, and so I think OP's hopes are unfounded. I just put the quote there to show that he did show respect towards islam, which actually strenghtens the paralel between his affair and in the end, failure in the ME, just like both Bush and Obama said in public that they respect islam, it's just the radicals/terrorists they have a problem with...and the US kind of failed handling things in the ME. OP claimed that Napoleon could make order in the ME. Well, he apparently couldn't do it back then, just like the US couldn't...or at least, they both failed maintaining it. Hence the analogy, but as I said in my second post in this thread- I don't know if you've read that as well, or not-, all analogies are claudicant, so take it with a grain of salt. In short, by no means was I trying to suggest that Napoleon really held islam in the highest esteem, he was a secular deist after all,but it's interesting to note how he still failed despite the lip-service to the crowds. Which reminded me of the US, but maybe it's just me?)

Anyway, you kind of contradict yourself. First you say he didn't care for religion, then you say he knew how important it is and used it for lip-service...so apparently he cared enough to make such statements.

Take this into consideration as well:

"As an adult, Napoleon was a deist, and showed more interest in Muhammad than in Jesus.
During the campaign in Egypt, Napoleon showed much tolerance towards religion for a revolutionary general, holding discussions with Muslim scholars and ordering religious celebrations, but General Dupuy, who accompanied Napoleon, revealed, shortly after Pope Pius VI's death, the political reasons for such behaviour: "We are fooling Egyptians with our pretended interest for their religion; neither Bonaparte nor we believe in this religion more than we did in Pius the Defunct's one". In his memoirs, Bonaparte's secretary Bourienne wrote about Napoleon's religious interests in the same vein.His religious opportunism is epitomized in his famous quote: "It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon."However, according to Juan Cole, "Bonaparte's admiration for the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast, was genuine" and during his captivity on St Helena he defended him against Voltaire's critical play Mahomet.

He also said to Gourgaud in 1817 "I like the Mohammedan religion best. It has fewer incredible things in it than ours." and that "the Mohammedan religion is the finest of all"."



So, he did believe in God and cared enough to study the religions and use them wisely. Just because someone doesn't particularly identify himself with a denomination and doesn't practice certain rituals, or just because he uses religion for political purposes, it doesn't mean said person doesn't care about religions...it's rather the contrary, imo, at least in the case of Napoleon. In any case, his respect for islam was genuine, just like his religious tolerance was genuine, so even if the above quote was lip-service, I don't see how that contradicts the notion of him showing respect towards islam, or how you conclude that he didn't care for religions...Not practicing a religion doesn't mean you don't care...for all I know, you are not a practicing muslim either, but you do identify as a muslim and you do care to defend islam in threads. You might not care for the rituals, but a religion is not all about ceremonies. Even if Napoleon didn't really think that the teachings of islam are true alone, he deifinitely respected its values, and that's all there is to it. I didn't say he really believed that islam is the true religion...of course that couldn't be the case...but it doesn't follow from that that he 'didn't care for religions at all'. I have to disagree with that.
 
Last edited:

Pumpkin Ninja

Kage in the Making 👑
Legendary
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
15,554
Reaction score
1,857
When did I claim he did? But using the word 'at all' is incorrect.


I know, it's also in the wikipedia article if one bothers reading the whole thing (hence I put the link there *shrug*)


So how does that contradict anything I said above? (My whole point was that Napoleon did fail in the M.E. as history attests, and so I think OP's hopes are unfounded. I just put the quote there to show that he did show respect towards islam, which actually strenghtens the paralel between his affair and in the end, failure in the ME, just like both Bush and Obama said in public that they respect islam, it's just the radicals/terrorists they have a problem with...and the US kind of failed handling things in the ME. OP claimed that Napoleon could make order in the ME. Well, he apparently couldn't do it back then, just like the US couldn't...or at least, they both failed maintaining it. Hence the analogy, but as I said in my second post in this thread- I don't know if you've read that as well, or not-, all analogies are claudicant, so take it with a grain of salt. In short, by no means was I trying to suggest that Napoleon really held islam in the highest esteem, he was a secular deist after all,but it's interesting to note how he still failed despite the lip-service to the crowds. Which reminded me of the US, but maybe it's just me?)

Anyway, you kind of contradict yourself. First you say he didn't care for religion, then you say he knew how important it is and used it for lip-service...so apparently he cared enough to make such statements.

Take this into consideration as well:

"As an adult, Napoleon was a deist, and showed more interest in Muhammad than in Jesus.
During the campaign in Egypt, Napoleon showed much tolerance towards religion for a revolutionary general, holding discussions with Muslim scholars and ordering religious celebrations, but General Dupuy, who accompanied Napoleon, revealed, shortly after Pope Pius VI's death, the political reasons for such behaviour: "We are fooling Egyptians with our pretended interest for their religion; neither Bonaparte nor we believe in this religion more than we did in Pius the Defunct's one". In his memoirs, Bonaparte's secretary Bourienne wrote about Napoleon's religious interests in the same vein.His religious opportunism is epitomized in his famous quote: "It is by making myself Catholic that I brought peace to Brittany and Vendée. It is by making myself Italian that I won minds in Italy. It is by making myself a Moslem that I established myself in Egypt. If I governed a nation of Jews, I should reestablish the Temple of Solomon."However, according to Juan Cole, "Bonaparte's admiration for the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast, was genuine" and during his captivity on St Helena he defended him against Voltaire's critical play Mahomet.

He also said to Gourgaud in 1817 "I like the Mohammedan religion best. It has fewer incredible things in it than ours." and that "the Mohammedan religion is the finest of all"."



So, he did believe in God and cared enough to study the religions and use them wisely. Just because someone doesn't particularly identify himself with a denomination and doesn't practice certain rituals, or just because he uses religion for political purposes, it doesn't mean said person doesn't care about religions...it's rather the contrary, imo, at least in the case of Napoleon. In any case, his respect for islam was genuine, just like his religious tolerance was genuine, so even if the above quote was lip-service, I don't see how that contradicts the notion of him showing respect towards islam, or how you conclude that he didn't care for religions...Not practicing a religion doesn't mean you don't care...for all I know, you are not a practicing muslim either, but you do identify as a muslim and you do care to defend islam in threads. You might not care for the rituals, but a religion is not all about ceremonies. Even if Napoleon didn't really think that the teachings of islam are true alone, he deifinitely respected its values, and that's all there is to it. I didn't say he really believed that islam is the true religion...of course that couldn't be the case...but it doesn't follow from that that he 'didn't care for religions at all'. I have to disagree with that.
I rarely read posts this long, but surprisingly, I take the time to read yours. There's more to Napoleon than I thought.

@Bold: Spot on, lol.
 

Babadook

Banned
Joined
Feb 14, 2015
Messages
317
Reaction score
76
I rarely read posts this long, but surprisingly, I take the time to read yours. There's more to Napoleon than I thought.

@Bold: Spot on, lol.

Thanks :blush: But I really didn't/don't do much, in my first post (the one you quoted) I just copy+pasted some facts from wikipedia. And I only put the quote there because I thought it's interesting, of course I didn't/don't think that Napoleon actually believed in islam....or, as wikipedia quotes it, he didn't believe in islam any more than in other religions...but he definitely respected it, and I wouldn't say he 'didn't care about religions at all'. Now of course it's another question how much he cared or what were his motives to care...but he did care to an extent, and he did show respect, at least to my understanding. Now of course politicians may say contradictory statements at different times and places....like Hitler on christianity...but even Hitler cared for religions, it's another question that he had a ...let's say 'unique' view on religions. But Hitler's private statements actually show contempt towards christianity. But in the case of Napoleon, his respect seems genuine. So, care and respect are not even the same thing. F.e Richard Dawkins cares a lot about religions -he made a career out of bashing them and writing books on them-, but he doesn't respect any. Of course humans in general may hold different views in different phases of their lives. F.e I used to be an atheist, now I'm not. But Napoleon seemed to be consistent at least in regard of the faith in a creator...he might not have been religious in the strong sense, that is practicing a particular denomination, but he did care.

But ofc you're right that particular quote was "lip-service"...but the respect behind those words is still real. But the point is, in context of the OP, that despite showing respect and allying with the Ottomans, he still failed to maintain his conquests, which means he didn't really do much better than the US. (Now people like Aim64 might come and say you can't win against ISIS unless you realize that the problem is islam and so you have to burn/destroy all the Qurans in the world and kill all muslims...but Napoleon definitely wouldn't do that, as he respected islam.) So, I don't think Napoleon would know better what to do with ISIS. Just like the current powers can't. Now it's another question how much it is because ISIS is so good, or simply the superpowers are not interested in putting an end to the conflicts yet...But in any case, it's not like Napoleon could stop teenagers joining ISIS or random idiots shooting people. Like, what would he do that the current leaders can't? Maybe Napoleon's military genius could destroy ISIS, but even the current powers could just send ground troops there, which would take care of ISIS but then what? They'd withdraw eventually again creating a power vacuum.
So, it seems to me- and it's not like I'm an expert so I might be wrong, and again, all analogies are claudicant-, but to me at least it seems that Napoleon's affair in the ME is similar to the US and co. meddling there (except that Napoleon probably still cared more for the region and still respected the people and the religion more than the West does today). But he still couldn't convince the masses that they should accept him as a leader who wants to 'create a regime based on the Quran'. It's not like muslims would accept a non-muslim leader. So, it was rather foolish from Napoleon's part to think that lip-service would change anything.
 
Last edited:
Top