Napoleon Bonaparte Was Not a Warmongering Conquerer

Greetings to my opponent! Thanks of creating this invigorating debate. It should be good fun and thought provoking. Have fun and keep it clean! I believe that I meet your requirements, as I am an avid history buff myself, and have been recurrently studying the Napoleonic Era for a great many years. I'm quite aware of the politics, mindset and military activity of the area. As a matter of fact, mostly with the military campaigns... heh Firstly, I would like to take the time to define 'warmongering'. Warmongering literally means, "The activities of a Warmonger." Warmonger means, "A person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war." http://dictionary.reference.com... Now, upon this definition, how could Napoleon not be a warmonger? The fellow blatantly precipitated five wars in the space of thirteen years. This isn't even enough time to let generations, armies, economies or soldiers to recuperate. He began the War of the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Coalitions. And then, after being exiled to Elba, Napoleon once again arises to do what? Raise an army of two hundred and eighty thousand men in order to overthrow the recently restored King of France and invade Belgium! He wished to destroy Coalition Armies before they combined. What kind of peaceful fellow returns from a humble exile only to do what he had done five times before? And then he created a forced draft policy in the hopes of garnering several million French peasants into his armies. He definitely was foolish in believing that he could triumph a last time, and he was also undoubtedly a warmonger. Now, my opponent describes a 'megalomaniac conqueror drunk on glory' being the clichï¿½, and he is correct. This is not the way Napoleon was, but Napoleon was, indeed, a warmonger and a conqueror. For this round, I will briefly outline several of my arguments for later: 1. Napoleon never abandoned his efforts to conquer a substantial portion of Europe or exert his authority over them. (this does include his replacing the Monarch of Spain with his own relative). 2. Napoleon enforced the Berlin Decrees and 'Continental' System upon both his allies and vanquished, literally starving them of essential goods and bleeding France to death, especially as other European nations eventually abandoned or freed themselves from his grasp. It is comprehensible that he enforce it upon France, as any other embargo, but to enforce it upon his allies and other European nations? 3. He did not attempt to call a peace with England, even with France's economy in shambles and England's still comfortable. Rather, he aspired to achieve naval dominance (or, at least, draw the Royal Navy away from the Channel) and conquer England (plans abandoned after Trafalgar). 4. After being defeated at Trafalgar, does Napoleon shake hands and gesture peace? No, he moves upon Austria and attempts to exert authority and conquest upon those Asian/European nations that hadn't yet been forced to submit to him. He didn't stop. Swedish Pomerania, Prussia, Italy, Duchy of Warsaw, Spain etc. all fell to him. 5. As of the end of the Third Coalition, Napoleon had not lost a significant battle. Why would he not continue - to his doom? Since there are five rounds, I shall finish up here and allow my opponent to take the floor with an opening argument. Been fun. :D