[nradov]

The Napoleonic wars were full of massive charges, and long violent sieges against fortresses. Armies figured out how to instill enough discipline into soldiers to march straight into enemy fire. Casualties in the front ranks of the French army at Waterloo were horrific, yet they still kept attacking all day long.

"A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon."

-Napoleon Bonaparte

[simonsarris]

Minor but annoying: Napoleon didn't say that and didn't mean it like that. When introducing the Légion d’Honneur (open to civilians too), the first introduction of an honor since the French Revolution, some on the left complained that this reintroduction violated the revolutionary concept of social equality. In 1802 when discussing the creation of it, Théophile Berlier sneered at the concept as merely baubles, and Napoleon replied:

"You tell me that class distinctions are baubles used by monarchs, I defy you to show me a republic, ancient or modern, in which distinctions have not existed. You call these medals and ribbons baubles; well, it is with such baubles that men are led.

I would not say this in public, but in a assembly of wise statesmen it should be said. I don't think that the French love liberty and equality: the French are not changed by ten years of revolution: they are what the Gauls were, fierce and fickle. They have one feeling: honour. We must nourish that feeling. The people clamour for distinction. See how the crowd is awed by the medals and orders worn by foreign diplomats. We must recreate these distinctions. There has been too much tearing down; we must rebuild. A government exists, yes and power, but the nation itself - what is it? Scattered grains of sand."

He went on that in order to ameliorate that sand, "We must plant a few masses of granite as anchors in the soil of France."

His phrase "it is with such baubles that men are led" (and your paraphrase) are often quoted out of context as something cynical, but Napoleon was actually commending these things as the physical manifestations of honor. If he's cynical about something, it's the liberty and equality bits.

[dwohnitmok]

That is a fascinating quote. The original if anyone else is curious appears to be from here:

https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_Rfl9mwoQBzkC/page/n93/mod...

The line after "We must plant a few masses of granite as anchors in the soil of France" ("Nous sommes maîtres de la faire , mais nous ne l’avons pas, et nous ne l’aurons pas, si nous ne jetons pas, sur le sol de la France, quelques masses de granit.") is perhaps an even more cynical take in light of the French Revolution that directly preceded Napoleon's rise.

> Croyez-vous qu’il faille compter sur le peuple? Il crie indifféremment Vive le roi, vive la ligue! Il faut donc lui donner une direction, et avoir pour cela des instruments.

[pradn]

Exactly, this is my point. Napoleon's professional standing armies are a relatively recent (~200 years) and exceptional compared to the historical norm. Even Napoleon was able to take lots of territory by just negotiating with actors who knew they had no chance. People don't want to just go die; this requires a large amount of training. Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal.

[DenisM]

Rome had professional standing armies more than 2000 years ago.

[pradn]

You are absolutely right, my mistake. None-the-less, professional standing armies didn't exist in most locales for most of history.

[ethbr0]

Most locales for most of history couldn't afford standing armies.

And not even from a financial standpoint -- there simply wasn't enough excess goods or food to have them out of the workforce.

[pradn]

Yes, that's true. A war machine requires surplus value. One reason why feudalism developed in Europe was for mounted warriors to be able to supply their warhorses. Facing constant violence, only super-appropriation of peasant surplus could give local lords and warriors enough resources to hold their own. And much of the success of many of the empires of history lies in their ability to requisition surplus value and use it to hire enough military labor. Rome could muster more soldiers than Carthage, for example.

[jessaustin]

Many centuries passed during which there were no armies with the qualities that those of Rome shared with those of Napoleon.

[tasogare]

I agree about the not wanting to die but "Not wanting to kill someone is something like a universal." is clearly wrong in a lot of cultures. And ignoring this fact is precisely what lead to some recent military disasters as well as bloodshed within Europe.

[natmaka]

AFAIK this also was the approach adopted by the Mongols, as early as during the 13th century (Golden Horde khanate).

[AniseAbyss]

You get a lot of globalist shills here but the reality is that nationalism is a powerful force.

You can see that in Afghanistan: the Dutch embassy staff waved goodbye to the plebeians down on the Kabul airport when their military flight took off. Being a citizen of a country matters and it is worth fighting for.

[agumonkey]

Social pressure

Still at play in most hierarchical structures imo

[MichaelGroves]

Wellington used to say that the presence of Napoleon on a battlefield was worth forty thousand men. Partly due to Napoleon's tactical skill I'm sure, but I think this also speaks to Napoleon's unusual ability to motivate men. They didn't want to disappoint Napoleon so they were more willing to throw their own lives away. I think the defection of the Fifth Infantry Regiment at Grenoble probably corroborates this. There, they had the opportunity to shoot Napoleon dead and slaughter his rag tag forces but instead they chose to join him.

[crazy_horse]

It speaks to the power of belief in something. Napoleon represented something bigger than a person, he was French nationalism.

I think a similar story (this is in Ken Burn's doc, told by Shelby Foote) is when the Union forces at Fredericksburg took the city and then sent wave after wave of soldiers at the Confederate held hills with a wall at the base of them. I don't recall how many waves it was (10+), but it's difficult to imagine being in the sixth or seventh wave, watch man after man before you walk into a "wall of lead" and decide to do it anyway.

How many people today have that kind of conviction? We can't get people to wear masks.

[fladrif]

Oh but interestingly isn't that a kind of conviction itself? They've been fed some kind of idea of 'freedom' that they now strongly adhere to until death (I assume a lot of anti-mask are also anti-vaccine and are now the ones dying in the hospitals).

If you look at American politics over the past 5 years, trump has almost become another napoleon in how fervent the support he has, and how the idea of 'freedom' has held.

[glofish]

Excellent point, arguably NOT wearing a mask takes a lot more conviction than wearing it.

if you believe wearing a mask benefits you then there is no need for "conviction", it is just a belief and the person is trying to maximize their own benefit

[ngcc_hk]

Or others. Especially the heavy load to hosiptal system if one get sicks. There are two forces in live - self preservation and passion for others. Left and right coexist in one. That is the fundamental issue in life.

[Clubber]

>We can't get people to wear masks.

It's because we have weak, ineffective, self serving leadership, and have since probably LBJ.

People fight and die for a cause, what in the US is worth fighting and dying for for the average Joe? Constant surveillance, harassment by the state police, corrupt politicians, corrupt justice system, income inequality, shit healthcare, shit schools, shit housing, shit food, shit safety net, regressive taxes, massive debt given to the rich, bailouts for banks, foreclosures for the people, eroded civil rights, eroded constitutional rights? You have the American dream, then you have the American reality. I mean we reap what we've sewn for the last 40+ years. If we really had a serious existential military threat, where we had to reinstate the draft, I'm not sure how strong our response would be because of all this. Who wants to die for Amazon.com or Walmart or AT&T's profit? I mean the American way of life, as it stands today, how would you feel if you had to send your conscripted sons and daughters to die to protect it?

[bruceb]

US has plenty of problems, is still better than many countries. Ask all the people who move here, they generally will be a lot more optimistic about the US.

[Gollapalli]

>still better than many countries.

Who the hell wants to kill and die for "still better than many countries?" If you think your country is worth keeping, you need a positive vision for that country.

[Clubber]

>Ask all the people who move here, they generally will be a lot more optimistic about the US.

Here's the top 10 countries of origin for immigration to the US in 2018 (before COVID). We can assume people who immigrate to the US do it for a better life than the country they came from. Notice there aren't any "developed" countries in this list. Care to guess what that says about the US?

Mexico - 161,858, Cuba - 76,486, China - 65,214, India - 59,821, Dominican Republic - 57,413, Philippines - 47,238, Vietnam - 33,834, El Salvador - 28,326, Haiti - 21,360, Jamaica - 20,347

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/us-immigr...

[nradov]

The US has a positive net migration rate with every other major developed country. More people move to the US from Australia, France Germany, Finland, Canada, etc than go the other way. Care to guess what that says about the US?

https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/...

[Ancapistani]

> Notice there aren't any "developed" countries in this list. Care to guess what that says about the US?

Well, it says that there aren’t many “developed” countries where emigrants can walk to the US.

[adventured]

> eroded civil rights

Civil rights in the US have been massively improved since the 1960s and 1970s. Even the prison population has been declining, finally, for about 12 years now. The war on drugs is ending.

You actually think eg black people or gay people are worse off in the US today than they were 30, 50, 70 years ago? It's an absurd premise. Just 30 years ago you couldn't even be publicly gay in Hollywood (left leaning Hollywood) or your career was toast. Gay people were widely culturally oppressed as recently as the 1980s and 1990s. Today Ellen is just about the biggest TV host in the country. Black people in the 1960s had something closer to no civil rights at all. Today the US has widespread protected class status for minorities, which wasn't the case as recently as the 1980s. In 1970 you could fire someone specifically for being a woman, or black, or gay, or just about anything else. You were largely free to mistreat today's protected classes to almost any degree you saw fit. Sexism in the workplace wasn't frowned upon as recently as the 1980s, there was no serious legal recourse, it was the status quo and almost universally tolerated. Try operating an office or business that way today, see what happens.

Or if you want to test things out culturally (litmus test it), go on LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook and go on a bunch of racist tirades. Use your real name and professional networks. See what happens to you professionally over time. You'll become an instant pariah.

Nearly across the board things are far better from a civil rights standpoint than in decades past. Both culturally and in terms of government. The primary exception remaining is minimum mandatory sentencing laws, which have been around for decades now.

> income inequality

There's absolutely nothing new about that. Go back to 1890 or 1920, income inequality was higher then than it is now. The US had a very brief period of time, lasting roughly only 20 years, where income inequality dropped lower.

> foreclosures for the people

There's absolutely nothing new about that. If you don't pay your mortgage, you get foreclosed on. That was true in 1960. It's true now. It should be true. The opposite is insanity.

> corrupt justice system

Whatever that means.

> harassment by the state police

The police were even worse 50 years ago than they are today. They were more violent, far more oppressive to minorities, and 100% got away with it. Their margin for getting away with abuse has declined considerably, despite propaganda to the contrary.

> corrupt politicians

True in most any nation that has ever existed or will ever exist.

> shit healthcare

US healthcare quality is closer to the OECD median. It's in fact not shit. It is exceptionally expensive for being at the median however. In the US it's the value proposition due to cost that is shit, not the actual quality of the healthcare.

> shit food

A bizarre, empty claim. The US is one of the most diverse nations in world history with one of the most elaborate consumer markets. You can eat whatever food you like.

> shit safety net

The US spends more of its economy on its social safety net than Canada or Australia. It has a lower homelessness rate than many of its prominent peers, precisely because its safety net is not shit (even if it's also not in the top tier).

> regressive taxes

The US has one of the most progressive tax systems in the developed world. It's far more progressive than Scandinavia by comparison. The US middle class pays exceptionally low taxes, which is one of the reasons the US middle class also has among the world's highest disposable income figures - comparable only to nations like Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway.

> massive debt given to the rich

No idea what that's supposed to mean. US households are in good financial condition compared to most of their affluent peers around the world.

> shit schools

Obviously far too comprehensive of a claim. The US has 17 of the top 20 universities in the world, give or take a position. Its top 100 universities are collectively unrivaled by the rest of the world. There is nobody close. The rest of the world has spent the entire post WW2 era trying to catch up to and mimic the US university outcome.

> shit housing

Plain false. US housing remains more affordable than housing in peer nations. Americans are able to buy larger, cheaper housing than their peers can. When it comes to having a ridiculous amount of space at a decent price, only a few developed nations compare to the US.

[Clubber]

I would agree with you with the gay and LGBTQ community, but I think you're off base on the rest of it. Also I wouldn't put Hollywood up as a good example as what's good with the US culturally.

I mean we don't lynch black people anymore, so hu-rah USA? We don't use child labor anymore (at least in country) so hu-rah USA? Instead of brutalizing black protestors, the police brutalize protestors in an equal opportunity fashion. Hu-rah USA. We're only as economically inequitable as the 1920's robber baron era, hu-rah USA. I suggest you try to expand your view a little and see what the WHOLE country really is like.