Explanation: Napoleon Bonaparte invaded the Russian Empire in 1812 for refusing to comply with his ‘Continental System’ meant to freeze out Britain (his most intransigent foe) from European trade.
Funny enough, he could have arrived as a liberator, having promised liberation to the Poles, and with many Russian serfs eagerly anticipating liberation by a son of the French Revolution. Unfortunately for them (and ultimately, for Napoleon as well), Napoleon was self-interested first, and a son of the French Revolution a distant second - as noted by the fact that he took up the fucking crown of France. The serf unrest which eagerly greeted his invading forces was brushed off, as Napoleon wished to make a favorable peace treaty with Russia, not upend the traditional cruelties of feudalism in Russia.
When his forces had to withdraw for a lack of supply come winter, few of the serfs mourned the French dead. What is one enabler of the boyars compared to another? What is the difference between them? Nichevo.
Napoleon’s forces would be shattered by this retreat, his war would end in total failure, his enemies would be emboldened, and they would band together to overthrow Napoleon entirely - and institute an even worse absolutist monarchy over France in his place.
In this, a tweet from a modern imperialist idiot ruling over the USA is modified to fit Napoleon - though Napoleon, at least, had significant intelligence and areas of competency - just too little personal virtue and introspection, and too much pride and ambition, to fully leverage them. He could certainly type a more coherent threat than that.
Explanation: Napoleon Bonaparte invaded the Russian Empire in 1812 for refusing to comply with his ‘Continental System’ meant to freeze out Britain (his most intransigent foe) from European trade.
Funny enough, he could have arrived as a liberator, having promised liberation to the Poles, and with many Russian serfs eagerly anticipating liberation by a son of the French Revolution. Unfortunately for them (and ultimately, for Napoleon as well), Napoleon was self-interested first, and a son of the French Revolution a distant second - as noted by the fact that he took up the fucking crown of France. The serf unrest which eagerly greeted his invading forces was brushed off, as Napoleon wished to make a favorable peace treaty with Russia, not upend the traditional cruelties of feudalism in Russia.
When his forces had to withdraw for a lack of supply come winter, few of the serfs mourned the French dead. What is one enabler of the boyars compared to another? What is the difference between them? Nichevo.
Napoleon’s forces would be shattered by this retreat, his war would end in total failure, his enemies would be emboldened, and they would band together to overthrow Napoleon entirely - and institute an even worse absolutist monarchy over France in his place.
In this, a tweet from a modern imperialist idiot ruling over the USA is modified to fit Napoleon - though Napoleon, at least, had significant intelligence and areas of competency - just too little personal virtue and introspection, and too much pride and ambition, to fully leverage them. He could certainly type a more coherent threat than that.
Honestly we should fit Trump rhetoric on more historical wackjob leaders.