Why didn't they just execute him?
Would they execute him?
>>290000
because he got quads or because they were afraid it would set a precedent if they lost the next war?
>>290000
Probably afraid they'd turn him into a martyr. It's not like it wasn't an option though. Part of the reason Napoleon surrendered to the British was because Blucher wanted him executed.
>>290010
Maybe
If not, because of martyrdom and other shit considerations
>>290000
Because they were British
Slowly poisoning him was more in their way
Well our history teacher actually told us in a lesson why it was better not execute him.
If you kill somebody, especially someone like Napoleon it will make him look like a martyr. People would mourn his death, while if they merely exiled him, some may feel bad, but in the end when he will die, people would be like "Napoleon died? Oh, ok, probs was old".
>>290000
They were hoping they could get another sequel out of him.
You don't want to start executing a head of state just because they lost a war. What happens if you lose the next war?
Without its master's command, the restless french would become even greater threat to this world.
The Pope pleaded with them not to.
>>290070
sup blizzard
thanks for ruining my childhood
>>290000
Most of European rulers had been defeated by Napoleon at some point and he executed none of them
It would have been a dick move to do that to him while he spared them
Few decades before Europe saw France going mad and knew that when they go for it they aren't kidding. Killing Napoleon could create a revolt in France and a desire of vengeance from the french and the last time this happened well...
>>290097
>he executed none of them
He would have been better off if he *had* executed them.
>>290060
I love how everything someone does not agree to becomes a meme. Care to explain why then?
>>290000
Pragmatical reasons and conjecture aside, executing another european head of state was not something really imaginable in european politics. Dethroning and humiliating him twice, without even the opportunity to abdicate to his son, was already enough and only justified because he wasn't a conventional monarch.
>>290109
Excluding Jesus, name one time a martyrdom was driving force of anything.
>>290145
>>290145
The martyrdom of Ali and his sons still shakes and divides the whole islamic world. The famous assasins were a direct consequence of the head of the shia and his sons being a martyr.
>>290145
>>290010
No. Theyd keep him alive and embaress him. Hed be retarded to not kill himself
>>290145
Philosophical revolution that has resounded for millennia, desu senpai
>>290145
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles
>>290010
Brits no russians yes t.b.h.
>>290000
Because it was the 19th century.
>>290054
>They were afraid of people drawing analogies to Jesus and using that to glorify Napoleon.
Now I don't mean to dispute you or anything, because I don't know shit about the topic, but how exactly would such a thing work? I mean, what logic would be used?
>>290145
>>290305
You know how today most people don't know shit about religion? It used to be worse.
Plus,
>Evil Empire kills valiant hero for trying to usher in a new age of peace and prosperity
>>290323
A new age of peace and prosperity through military conquest and puppet dictators.
>>290323
I suppose there was already such analogies being made among the populace, and the fear wasn't so unfounded that they just randomly began to fear Jesus analogies?
>>290000
Because it's 1815
>>290145
>redirecting the argument
Nice try, atheist.
>>290000
He was a ruler of sovereign country. It was unthinkable that a ruler would have jurisdiction over another ruler, even if he was initially a product of a revolution.
International law and later international tribunals only started out as a result of the Congress of Vienna. Even the German and Austro-Hungarian rulers abdicated out of their own volition after WWI and they weren't really forbidden by Versailles from ascending the throne again. Hungary spent the entire 20s and 30s nominally as a monarchy, with the regent in place, supposedly waiting for the king to return. The reality was that the Hungarians didn't want Charles to return, but the possibility was open.
>>290145
>>290010
Yes. Look up the Nürnberg Trials.
>>290145
Is this a joke?
![poster-die-durchfuehrung-von-marschall-ney-403233[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/fhVJyxv.jpg "poster-die-durchfuehrung-von-marschall-ney-403233[1].jpg")
Why did they just execute him?
>>290000
They, British and their ally Talleyrand, already baited him exiling him in Elba Island to then defeat definitively him in Waterloo. And in Saint Elena they actually slowly poisoned him.
>>290145
Socrates
>>290529
Fuck you.
>>290529
The monarchist gave him a chance when Napoleon was first defeated, but he betrayed them as soon as Napoleon came back
Ney knew very well that a defeat in the Seventh Coalition meant death for him
>>290620
Worst feel.
>For much of his public life, Napoleon was troubled by hemorrhoids, which made sitting on a horse for long periods of time difficult and painful. This condition had disastrous results at Waterloo; during the battle, his inability to sit on his horse for other than very short periods of time interfered with his ability to survey his troops in combat, and thus exercise command.[16]
Emperial scourge of Europe defeated by hemmeroids
>>291283
Have been there. I feel for him. I wouldn't wish that pain on anybody.
>>290145
Julius Ceasar
Also fuck you.
European monarchs were uncomfortable with the idea of executing another monarch. In Europe being a king was a divine mandate and therefore the murder of a king was an affront to God and the natural order.
IDK, maybe it's because the royalty of Europe wasn't fighting Napoleon, they were fighting the revolutionary idea that the masses shouldn't take orders from royalty. If they simply executed Napoleon instead of having him helplessly rot away on an island their own countries might have eventually risen up and beheaded them.
Because his zombie army would rise from the grave?
>>290145
MAH BOI TRAYVON
>>290147
Driving force of capitalism, how ironic.
Was it common practice to execute a sovereign ruler?
>>290000
Because it wasn't proper to execute a sovereign.
The world was still in horror at what happened to Louis XVI during the French Revolution, and the Brits were still ashamed of Cromwell executing Charles I two centuries earlier.
>>290620
Learning this history about my french side is kinda depressing. Makes me sometimes wish my ancestors were British before moving to America
>>292345
France did it. But the whole point of the Wars of the Coalition was that they were supposed to be counter-revolutionary in character. Napoleon was an anointed monarch, regardless of whether one accepted the legitimacy of his line or not. To then execute him would have been hypocrisy of the highest order. Although I don't doubt that there were voices that advocated this, probably from the Russian and British camps - it's important to remember that Napoleon still had powerful connections with the Austrian monarchy through his wife. It was this that probably saved his hide.
There would probably be an uprising. Not just by the people, but by a good number of the military themselves.
Because despite everything he was a leader of a nation and executing a leader was quite literally against social and political protocols at the time.
As an example, that's why the British went anti-revolution once Louis XVI actually died. Because it just ain't cricket chaps.
>>290620
Also Ney was a certified badass. When his lawyer presented his treason defense on the basis of a technicality that he was not French because the region he was born in became German territory after the war he stood up and stated that he was born a Frenchman and will remain one.
>>293904
desu.......Ney probably told his lawyer to say that, so Ney could desperately give one last patriotic stand in front of the judges in some kind of hope to get off the hook
Napoleon had by that time intermarried into the royal bloodlines and held official noble titles while he was emperor of France. His sons successor Napoleon III became Emperor of the second French Empire.
>>290022
>because they were afraid it would set a precedent if they lost the next war?
This seems reasonable. It wasn't really until WW2 and the emerging concept of human rights that morality or ethics became relevant and important to wars. Presumably because of how things went down in WW2. Didn't stop the UK and USA from forgetting to acknowledge any of their own human rights abuses after it was finished.
Also executing Napoleon would've made Russia, Britain, Austria and Prussia possibly comparable or equivalent to the French revolutionaries of the 1790s, something which they definitely did not want.
>>293910
The Judges probably knew the charges against him were absurd since Napoleon legitimately held power in France after the Bourbons fled and he never swore allegiance to them. This is confirmed by the fact that Ney was allowed to give the order to fire to undoubtedly to some of his own troops he led in battle. The kangaroo trial was meant to serve as a warning to any other of Napoleon's officer's who dared to get out of line.
>>290091
>No king rules forever my son
>I see only.....darkness...before me
When you realise this was the last thing ever said before wow died.
>>293977
I realized that a long time ago.
>old blizzard kept a constant theme, down to the fucking vocals
>new blizzard is drowning players in fanservice
Because compared to Louis XIV and The National Assembly with the reign of terror, Napoloen was a fucking saint. Sure he really fucked up with Russia and took over a shit ton of Europe through war and conquest but he was pretty fair to the French people. His downfall was ultimately his ego and to kill him after so much death of the French Revolution would be against the ideas that started it.
>>292307
hahahhahaa
>>291707
Napoleon was never a king.
>>294097
Emperor of the French and King of Rome.
the climate and mouldy barrack on st helena was deadly enough.
>>290000
The French adore nothing more than political and military talent. See: Petain, De Gaule.
>>294856
they had no say about napoleon's fate in 1815
>>294097
He was kingz n shit
>>295358
Atleast you aren't one of those 1/64 pure german americans
>>290010
Remember what happened to Mussolini?
>>290145
so many people biting the hook that I'd feel unbelonging if I didn't
>>295384
that's what i'm saying anon, i'm 1/64 of who knows what flavour of native american and when im not it's the fucking british and not a single person born on this continent is apparently allowed to be proud of that
>>290145
This is literally too stupid to be bait.
>>290108
That's not the way things were done then, honor was still a big part of how armies worked and fought
>>290041
>probs
>>290000
Not even the Anglos were that cowardly and perifidious.
>>290535
Given how that worked out for the other Messiah, what's-his-name, I don't see the problem with Jews considering him thus.
This is a joke, by the way.
>>290000
i may just be very high right now, but what if they executed him and then all the frenchmen martyred him and he became french jesus
would you follow napoleonism, /his/
>>295504
But they were. Sending a man as great as Napoleon to die in a damp house in the middle of nowhere was proof of their cowardice. They were afraid of him returning again.
>>290000
The Prussians wanted him dead very much. That's why Napoleon ran to the English
>>290414
first true answer. Nobody in this thread prior to this knows what they're talking about and are only making shit up
>>295542
>french jesus
>>295542
Napoleon is the single greatest human being to have ever existed. He's far more worthy of devotion than Jesus, although I'm not entirely sure he'd find deification acceptable. He did contemplate going full Kurtz mode and starting his own cult in Egypt when he was there with him as the embodied Godhead, but ultimately decided against it.
>>296219
Huh?
Where'd you get that? As far as l know, Napoleon briefly flirted with Islam during his Egyptian campaign, but that's about it.
>>296232
Fugg I don't have any of the books on me at the moment. But it's in Vincent Cronin's Napoleon. It's when he's in Egypt and briefly flirts with the idea of taking his army and conquering all the way to India instead of going north. He basically raises the idea that he could start dressing as an Oriental, mount an elephant and start his own religion.
>>295460
Just accept you're American, faggot. There's nothing to be ashamed of considering our pretty interesting 400 year history.
>>295460
You're a colonial, you have next to no connection to the old world. Now stop being so tribal and live your life.
>>296339
Oh right, l remember reading something similar in Roberts' biography as well.
How is Cronin, anyway? I've been meaning to read his book for a while now.
>>296509
It's good, worth reading. I'm about 200 pages into Roberts at the moment as well and they both have a slightly different slant. Cronin has what feels like a greater focus on Napoleon's family and personal/romantic life. It's more like a Bonaparte family history in places. It's also more speculative from a psychological angle, there's a lot of discussion for example about the impact of Napoleon witnessing the storming of the Tuileries Palace and the massacre of the Swiss Guards had on his actions when he later defended the Directory against the Rising of the Sections. Roberts doesn't draw such a connection, but he does have a wider factual scope in places, which may be a consequence of him being closer to Napoleon's letters. For example Cronin never mentions that Napoleon contracted scabies in Toulon which wasn't cured until 1806/7. So I like being able to draw information from both since it's impossible to really ever have a 'definitive biography.'
>>296566
Sweet, guess l should check it out then.
Thanks. <3
>>290145
Caesar for fuck sakes.
