How was Napoleon able to hold control of so many countries before his abdication?
I know he often put his family members in power within foreign countries, but couldn't those people subjected to him still rebel? If so, did they not because they actually supported him?
Also, Napoleon general thread.
>>299159
All of Europe was used to being ruled by asshole royals who didn't give a shit about the peasantry. Why would they rise up against the dude supposedly liberating them from the royal assholes?
>>299159
He had to over compensate for his small stature and his tiny manhood if you know what I mean senpai.
Every time people tried to rise up against France they got their shit kicked in
T. 1st-5th coalition war
>>299159
Generally people had it better, or thought that they would, under his regime.
Remember that his regime was more secular than most at the time. Law was simplified and everyone was equal under it (except him of course).
>>299159
>rebelling against a Republic who just came along and fucked over the Royal dickheads running your nation
Gee I wonder.
Yeah is not like there were not examples
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsular_War
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_XIV_John_of_Sweden#Crown_Prince_and_Regent
>>299159
Why would people rebel against this:
>Despite the fact that not all French laws applied to the territory of the Illyrian Provinces, Illyrian offices were accountable to ministries in Paris and to the Higher Court of Paris. Inhabitants of the Illyrian Provinces had Illyrian nationality. Initially the official languages were French, Italian and German, but in 1811 Slovenian was added for the first time in history.
>Among the main changes the French empire brought were the overhaul of administration, the changing of the schooling system – creating universities and making Slovene a learning language – and the usage of the Napoleonic code (the French Code Civil) and the Penal Code.
>Although the French did not entirely abolish the feudal system, their rule familiarized in more detail the inhabitants of the Illyrian Provinces with the achievements of the French revolution and with contemporary bourgeois society. They introduced equality before the law, compulsory military service and a uniform tax system, and also abolished certain tax privileges, introduced modern administration, separated powers between the state and the church (the introduction of the civil wedding, keeping civil registration of births etc.), and nationalized the judiciary. The occupants made all the citizens theoretically equal under the law for the first time.
>>299159
>what is Spanish guerilla
Napoleon should have given Illyria and his other Italian provinces to Murat in Naples, would have made the empire top tier in aesthetics
>>299159
Because people liked what he was selling.
200 years later: this is still in the polish national anthem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_Is_Not_Yet_Lost
>Bonaparte has given us the example. Of how we should prevail.
>>299159
Near the end, Napoleon's reputation alone was enough tow in wars. There's accounts of armies fleeing smaller French forces because they thought Napoleon was in charge of them; Wellington talks about him being worth 10,000 extra men or something. The final strategy the Russian-Austrain-Prussian armies used was 'fight everyone but Napoleon". It worked, too.
His reputation was enough to keep a lot of countries in line, as well as a lot of troops eager to join him. It would've been interesting to see what might have happened had his empire survived enough for him to die.
>>299159
The spaniards rebelled, a lot. Where they really the only ones?
>>300225
Because Napoleon was literally the anti-christ. Deus fucking vult.
