- This topic has 5 voices and 16 replies.
-
Posts
-
My personal choice is that the Napoleonic Wars had a more decisive effect on the development of Europe because they ushered in an almost 70 year era of peace with the concert of Europe. A time in which the arts, science, culture and European civilization in general grew at a rate unmatched before or since.
But the Seven Years War gave naval superiority to Britain, which likely used this to its own advantage around the globe for many years thereafter into the 19th century. And the fact that it stressed France's financial resources, helping lead to the French Revolution, meant that it played a significant role in Napoleon's eventual rise to power.http://members.cox.net/johnahamill/sevenyears.html
I am thinking here more of which war set Europe for the flourishing of its culture. I could buy the Seven Years War argument as well because it helped to cement the global superiority of European states over the rest of the world. I have read articles that claim it was also the first true world war, another plausible claim. I stand by the Napoleonic wars though as afterwards Europe enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity.
The Napoleonic Wars setup World War I and II and you will have to study Karl von Metternich to understand why.
WWI. It caused the split with Russia and Europe, it changed Germany, it led to WWII, it changed the balance of world power from Europe to the United States, it started tensions between the Middle East and the West.
WWI. It caused the split with Russia and Europe, it changed Germany, it led to WWII, it changed the balance of world power from Europe to the United States, it started tensions between the Middle East and the West.
Come on Ski that's no fun. You know we have to take a position that's harder to defend. ;D
WWI. It caused the split with Russia and Europe, it changed Germany, it led to WWII, it changed the balance of world power from Europe to the United States, it started tensions between the Middle East and the West.
Lets see, Russia was only partly European to begin with, the split between Russia and Europe goes deeper than WWI and Bolshevism. Don't forget that Russia is a power that straddles Europe and Asia. Russian interests have always been different than Europe's. Indeed, Britain and Russia faced potential conflict along the Northwest Frontier in India virtually throughout the 19th century, it was one of the reasons Britain got involved in the Crimean War. I will buy the balance of power argument, WWI was definitely a turning point in America's ascendancy to world power status. I could argue that tension between the Middle East and West go back to at least the ancient Greeks but the current round has more to do with the building of the Suez Canal and the invention of the internal combustion engine and the West's subsequent reliance on Middle Eastern fossil fuels than anything that happened during WWI. If anything the West built up good will during WWI by dismantling the Ottoman Empire and granting the people of the Middle East at least limited self-government. Do not forget that it was England that set up the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or at a minimum was responsible for the conditions that allowed it to happen. They also established monarchies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Persia(Iran), and Jordan.
Do not forget that it was England that set up the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or at a minimum was responsible for the conditions that allowed it to happen. They also established monarchies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Persia(Iran), and Jordan.
Agreed. The British and the French divided the Mid East. The problem with that is the Middle Eastern empires did not want to be under any French and British rule. They wanted, and the British at first promised, full autonomy.I see your point with Russia. But I was thinking more it opened the doors for the rise of communism in Eastern Europe. The agreements after WWII just LET them do it. :-
Russia was only partly European to begin with, the split between Russia and Europe goes deeper than WWI and Bolshevism. Don't forget that Russia is a power that straddles Europe and Asia. Russian interests have always been different than Europe's.
Very much agree, but what about Bismarck's Reinsurance Treaty with Russia? When little Kaiser Wilhelm decided not to renew it, that alliance went downhill real fast.
I am thinking here more of which war set Europe for the flourishing of its culture. I could buy the Seven Years War argument as well because it helped to cement the global superiority of European states over the rest of the world. I have read articles that claim it was also the first true world war, another plausible claim. I stand by the Napoleonic wars though as afterwards Europe enjoyed an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity.
“Peace and prosperity” being relative, I'm guessing. France had three “revolutions” after the main one at the end of the 18th century….one around 1830, and I don't recall when the other two were. But your point is taken – that the number of inter-national wars seems to have decreased during this century.
Google Red and Black France. France has a long history of vacillating between Parliamentarian Democracy and Monarchy with a pinch of military dictatorships thrown in the mix.
But France had no revolutions as bloody and far-reaching as 1789, only the one in 1848 came close. Who can deny that the Arts and Sciences flowered in Europe during the 19th century? The relative peace that they enjoyed was due to the Concert of Europe, which was a duirect result of the horrors and disruption of the Napoleonic wars.
I have to agree. Napoleon did more to reshape Europe than anyone. Everything the Germans did came as a result of the power vacuum Napoleon's defeat left and the utter paranoia on the part of the British and other Europeans of stopping the next Napoleon from coming along….which of course ultimately led to the World Wars. Why? Because Europeans thought if the balance of power ever tilted one way or the other, war had to be unleashed to bring the balance back. Napoleon scarred them that much I suppose.
It is also well to remember that Napoleon was an outstanding legal theorist even though he was not trained as such. Much of France's current laws are based on the Napoleonic code with a leavening of leftovers from the Ancien Regime. Napoleon was not just a military genius, he was many talented like many of the greatest leaders throughout the ages.
