Napoleon Bonaparte Was Not a Warmongering Conquerer

I suppose that all of the points that I can legitimately make to reveal Napoleon as conqueror, aside from analyzing his greedy and tempered personality, have been made. I have clearly demonstrated that he was an aggressor who wished to dominate Europe. Mobs in Paris were frequent during that time; what difference is one Royalist or Jacobin mob from another? It was a Constitution that the people did not wish, as they felt they were oppressed! It was the first time that any ruler would ruthlessly utilize cannon to sort out their own people - many of whom weren't armed with firing weapons. Not only did he utilize cannon, but he used scattershot! He meant to kill or maim as many as he possibly could! 'Saved' is a definite hyperbole. It is unlikely that they would have been able to route Napoleon from Paris. Also, they had a reason for their livid reaction; the leaders of the Royalists had been blatantly excluded from the Directory (the new French Government). I did not misunderstand. I was fully aware that Austria's armies had possessed Italy. This has little to do with the dire blatant truth that Napoleon Subjugated the Papal States and affirmed then under his own control, rather than letting them be turned into the Independent nations that once they had been. My opponent states that Napoleon detested looting, yet there are many acclaimed historians that make such statements as, "...Had never seen such an orgy of looting and plunder since Napoleon." (Max Hastings, Armageddon) "(French armies on the retreat from Russia) Over 40,000 vehicles of all kinds, loaded with loot instead of supplies..." * The Pope and his hierarchy were peaceful men, they preach not of war, how could they be a militaristic threat to Napoleon? It is evident that he felt threatened merely by the religious power that the Pope possessed over the people. He was so eager to gain more that he did not hesitate to exile him. Napoleon, being a leader of an atheist Government, had no use for the religious leaders (he was, I should make this clear, religiously tolerant and even emancipated the Jews from persecution), and, being the tyrant that he was, pressured the very head of Catholicism. My opponent claims that the Imperial Government had a choice or viewpoint available to them, and this was true, provided that it aligned with Napoleon's viewpoint. You see, ladies and gentlemen, the Directory fell due to a series of discrepancies and militaristic disasters. On the 9th of November, 1799, France and the army fell into the hands of Napoleon. A brief Coup d'etat (Napoleon led, such was his lust for power) and "...parliamentary and military power went into the hands of a single man." ** The Consulate was formed and Napoleon voted as the 'First Consul' (man with the most power). Napoleon then went on to eradicate Sieyï¿½s and republicans/people who did not wish to see the Power of France fall into the leadership of a lone man ( Moreau and Massï¿½na being two of these people). He annulled the Assemblies and then interfered with the Senate, making them omnipotent on all Constitutional matters. He created a treatise with the church that benefited himself. He was voted consul for life and then took steps to consolidate power; re-introduced plenipotentiaries, exiled leaders who might challenge his power, demoralized his military commanders, controlled propaganda, expelling his critics and nullifying the Republican Army before replacing it with his own 'Grande Armee'. Not even being the 'First Consul for Life' satisfied him. No, he had to become 'An enlightened despot' *** He became Emperor of the French and his satellite nations. He aspired to style himself as the famed Roman emperor Augustus Caesar (who, I may also add, initiated many conflicts). "Why were the conscripts actually eager to sign up? Why, in 1815, when he returned to France, not a single soldier fired on him and joined him instead? He was immensely popular with the army and continued to be until the very end." this, in itself, is a peculiar statement. Conscripts eager to sign up? Isn't that oxymoronic? Conscripts are forced to sign up; there may be a few who do so willingly, but the majority of them do it so that their families do not get persecuted. Let us compare it to Hitler's armies. He utilize conscription and thousands and millions signed up for the 'Fuhrer' and the 'Reich'. Everybody was pleased to be a German soldier in 1939, 1940 and 1941, when Hitler owned Europe, the Allies torn, Russia invaded and England besieged. It is a like manner that men conditioned by propaganda would sign in Napoleon's armies - for their nation. While the nation expands and is victorious, they can earn medals, eat well, receive payment and treat life as plentiful. When the fighting gets grim, do you really think that these conscripts and soldiers were happy, as you proclaim? Of course not! As I have also mentioned, these men were carefully conditioned by propaganda. They were soldiers of the 'greatest' and most victorious nation of Europe. Why not fight? To their doom. I have never denied that he was very considerate in his political, administrative and religious achievements. This is true, but it is also irrelevant as to whether or not he was a warmonger. He precipitated and began several conflicts. He ruthlessly consolidated power and manipulated leaders until he controlled a vast portion of Europe - of which very little naturally belonged to him. "vassal states", as my opponent agrees, are too true. Napoleon created many of which were subjugated by him. Here are some quotations that the reader may find interesting from the book, "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon." "But it was Napoleon, however, and not the Russian ruler who actively prepared for aggression." * Thus, I have clearly demonstrated that Napoleon, by definition in Round 1, was a warmonger. He certainly advocated every war that he fought in. He endorsed them all and precipitated most of them (such as mobilizing and attacking before Austria even realized that war had been declared in England and France, or marching on Russia while Russia was astonished), even if he only actually declared war for a few of them. I proved that Napoleon grasped power and always attempted to consolidate more of it; such was his greed. He also was paranoid to lose it, as many other famed warmongers have been - Hitler and Stalin foremost among them. Thanks for a wonderful Debate, Nazgul. I think I'll take you up on that offer. this has been most interesting! Readers, since I have clearly shown that Napoleon was, no matter how many civil achievements, a warmonger. Vote Con! ~ "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon." * http://books.google.ca... ** http://en.wikipedia.org... *** http://www.slashdoc.com...