Lingyun
Abstract: Napoleon, this famous figure in European history, once swept through Europe, surprised the storm, but he is not invincible, there are two times in his life was defeated, but after two failures, they were only exiled, then his opponent, suffered his suffering, why not simply kill him?
[Announcement, this number was relocated from the original headline number "Zhibingtang Guangting", please continue to pay attention to support]
Napoleon, this famous figure in European history, once swept through Europe and surprised the storm, but he was not invincible, he was defeated twice in his life, but after two failures, he was only exiled, so his opponent, who suffered his hardships, why not simply kill him?
In Napoleon's story, I originally thought that there was something common sense, but every time I saw the relevant discussion, I found that in the group of people who talked about Napoleon on the Internet, this matter was not common sense, but only a little bit hotter than cold knowledge: this is Napoleon's identity problem.
Many people think that Napoleon is the Emperor of France, who laid a large area of land in Europe, so they are more familiar with Napoleon's military and political aspects, which starts to deviate from the root. Napoleon he was not the Emperor of France, to be precise, he was not just the Emperor of France, he was the legitimate, God-given Emperor of Europe, or the Emperor of Rome! Because of the complexity of European history, there is a lot of controversy in translation, so it may not be very correct to say so, but it is roughly the same meaning.
Like Louis XVIII, Napoleon III or something that came out of France later, that was the King of France. Note that European countries still retain monarchies, or those monarchs in history, are called "kings" rather than "emperors", and sometimes some people use the title of emperor, some translation and application are not rigorous on the mainland, and some are forcibly crowned by themselves.
The history of Europe is a bit strange, because of the existence of the Papal States, the role of religious factors, the Roman Empire died and did not disperse, roughly equivalent to the mainland has been the spring and autumn of the historical state of continuation, many people look at the story of the Spring and Autumn Warring States, not very concerned about the characters in the "Zheng Bo", "Sui Hou", "Xiang Gong", "Zhuang Wang", in fact, these are positions, at the beginning of Zheng Bo's Zheng Kingdom recently, all aspects developed, there are hundreds of military vehicles, you can threaten the four sides, but in general, in the end are those "Gong" of the fiefdoms of the great powers, only to be eligible for supremacy. In the Warring States, they began to claim the title of king, and many of them were actually unjustified, especially the Qi king of the State of Qi. At the end of the Warring States period, there was also a farce in which the State of Qin deceived the State of Qi into claiming the title of emperor. The real emperor, of course, there was no emperor at this time, and the nominal supreme ruler of the whole of China was Zhou Tianzi. These uncles, princes, and kings were all subordinates of Zhou Tianzi, but Zhou Tianzi no longer had enough strength to control them.
The situation in Europe is roughly the same, for example, Russia claimed to be the Tsar, but the beginning was the Grand Duchy of Kiev, and later felt that their strength was getting stronger and stronger, so they were called emperors, which was also a general factor for Europeans not to love birds, in fact, the Tsar until Nicholas II was wiped out by the whole family, and their legitimate and recognized position was still grand duke.
Napoleon was different, he was the legitimate emperor of the Roman Empire who died and did not disperse, and the European countries were no longer willing, but they all recognized it at that time. So Napoleon could legitimately divide his family and subordinates into Danish kings, Italian kings or whatever. Even after his defeat, these divided kings still have legal effect and are still legitimate kings. Countless ambitious kings in European history had dreams of unifying Europe and becoming Roman emperors, but napoleon alone did this after the collapse of the Roman Empire, and although briefly, he was the only political figure recognized to have done so.
These are not nonsense or digressions, and only by acknowledging this can we know that Napoleon led the French army to conquer the east and west, sweeping through Europe, not invading other countries, but legally requisitioning no subjects! Many of us now have a lot of Internet whites, instilling in young people the concept that as long as the fist is big, as long as the strength is sufficient, they can do whatever they want, and they don't know that politics is such a thing, manpower is exhausted, to a certain extent or height, you think that the illusory "people's will" and "justified", in fact, are very, very important. At that time, the seven anti-French alliances formed by European countries were illegal.
There is also an extremely complex emerging bourgeoisie, the class struggle between the aristocratic forces of the feudal kingdoms, in general, Napoleon represents the interests of the emerging bourgeoisie, inheriting the mission of the bourgeois democratic revolution of the French Revolution, so at the beginning, the emerging forces of the bourgeoisie regarded him as the master, Beethoven's "Symphony of Heroes", which was originally dedicated to him, but later Napoleon seemed to have compromised with the feudal aristocracy, or showed signs of transformation, Beethoven was extremely angry, and only then was it renamed "Symphony of Heroes".
Looking at Napoleon from the perspective of God afterwards, he could not resist the temptation of the top feudal title of the European emperor, and there were also places of political compromise with the feudal aristocracy, but the general policy and general line were indeed on the side of the emerging bourgeois forces, but to his height, the mutual compromise between various political forces was inevitable, and it was indeed impossible to say that Napoleon had betrayed his original ideals.
Napoleon's defeat is also the weakness brought about by the bourgeoisie, the showdown between the old and the new forces, after the anti-French alliance reached a compromise with the new forces within each other, the new forces actually supported the side representing the feudal aristocracy, and the emerging forces on napoleon's side were also tired of the drag caused by the perennial war, so Napoleon was actually the one who was backstabbed and betrayed.
But in the combination of war and political bargaining, the emerging bourgeois forces, on the European continent, had reached a compromise with the feudal aristocratic forces and were qualified to sit down and participate in decision-making. At the same time, the feudal aristocracy is not a fool, including Wellington, who has long learned the power of the bourgeoisie in the war, and knows better than the bourgeoisie itself who represents the advanced productive forces of that era, so when he turns around, he devotes himself to the advanced economic activities of the bourgeoisie and industrial investment as a feudal nobleman, and becomes a double-faced person of the aristocracy and the capitalist, so the victory or defeat of this war is not as simple as the victory of the feudal forces on the surface.
Europe has come out of the dark ages of the Middle Ages, a Renaissance, a Napoleonic War, are all milestones in the bourgeois democratic revolution, so napoleon as a figure in the history of European countries is a positive figure, including the British, Germans, and Russians who have suffered Napoleon's great losses, in their history, can only admit Napoleon's exploits with a sour taste.
Then in Napoleon's time, he was defeated, but he did not commit a crime, most of the soldiers in his army were children of bourgeois civilians, and his army was a relatively idealistic, honorable and disciplined army at that time, and it cannot be said that there were no criminal acts against civilians at all, but it was certainly far less than the feudal army of the Anti-French League, so napoleon's sore feet could not be caught in this regard.
The other is that their anti-French alliance is the culprit that led to the war, Napoleon, who fought all his life, even if he fought in other countries with his army, it was the emperor who came from afar to conquer the subjects, and there was no way to put on Napoleon's head such crimes as aggression and war maniacs, so he could only be exiled, and he could not even strip him of his title of emperor. Moreover, the old and new sides have compromised, and there is no need to add more waves to Napoleon, who has already lost power, and exile is the most perfect and acceptable plan for all parties.
However, it is also said that Napoleon was exiled after his second defeat, but he was secretly poisoned to death. Because his opponent was still very jealous of him, afraid that he would get out of the exile again, and then raise his arms and pull up a million troops, then it would be a disaster, so if it was not possible to execute him openly, then he would be secretly poisoned.
With this article, I dedicate it to the eternal Emperor, Napoleon. Bonaparte.
(The picture of this article is from the network)