why the fuck did napoleon marry a poor 32yo used goods slut

well mate he probably liked her

>>1571443
>with two kids
So that fertility is confirmed

Roman nobles PREFERRED to marry widows or divorced mothers with living kids

Child deaths were stupid high enough as is back then to marry woman who might end up barren and waste years of your life

>>1571452
she was barren and did waste years of his life tho

>>1571464
he didn't knew it at the time

also from what i remember they were really close

>>1571460
yo just out of interest, do you have alot of sex?

>>1571443
>>1571460

she's hot and he can do whatever the fuck he wants, he's the Emperor.

>>1571494
>she's hot
[citation needed]

>>1571505
look at OP's pic

Napoleon fell in love with his image of her not the real person. Josephine treated him like shit and cheated on him while spending his money.
It wasn't until later that Napoleon woke up from his dream and divorced her. He did marry an Austrian cutie princess that gave him a son.

Napoleon truly loved her, just read his correspondence

>>1571509
with her*

love

>>1571443
Because Napoleon was just a Corsican soldier from a middle-class family.

He was basically just faking his way through the whole Emperor thing.

>>1571525
aren't those pretty much just him describing sex acts and asking for sex

>>1571443
>>1571460
terrible bait

>>1571443
Allegedly she was one of the rare females who could beat him at chess and that's why he took an interest in her.

>>1571460
> implying he couldn't bang any french pussy he wanted

Redpill is the worst meme ever.

>>1571693
he really couldn't

he was an ugly manlet who banged some 5/10 groupies and that's pretty much it

>>1571707
>marie louise
>5/10

I want anglos to leave.

>>1571707
Napoléon was not ugly or a manlet.

Also, he was the Emperor of France, and master of Europe: he could have been a paraplegic disfigured syphilis ridden tiny dicked dwarf, and the most beautiful women of Europe would still have been lining up to get fucked by him by pure attraction to power and ambition.

>>1571761
>Napoléon was not ugly or a manlet
5'7" was manlet for today and for his class
>Also, he was the Emperor of France, and master of Europe: he could have been a paraplegic disfigured syphilis ridden tiny dicked dwarf, and the most beautiful women of Europe would still have been lining up to get fucked by him by pure attraction to power and ambition.
oh yeah because that's what happened with marie walewska she just swooned over his power and ambition

you nappy fanboys are delusional

>>1571443

she had mad pussy game

>>1571834
>marie walewska she just swooned over his power and ambition

By "ambition", I meant the women's ambition. As in they would get fucked by him to obtain things from him.

So, yeah ? Napoleon wanted her, she didn't want him, but she wanted to help get Poland free. So she let the Emperor fuck her, whisper a few sweet words about Poland being not yet lost in the afterglow, and a year later you get the duchy of Warsaw. A true patriotic heroine. And she got a shit ton of cash and land too.

>>1571601
Isn't that pretty much love?

>>1571906
wow that's an equivalent trade you've convinced me he wasn't ugly

>>1571932
that's lust at best

>>1571443
A piece that fit his Jigsaw.

File: 1419688409447.png (545KB, 543x447px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 543x447px

>>1571443
According to his own words, Napoleon loved her but never respected her. Look up some of his "love" letters. One of them starts with Napoleon calling her a lying, untrustworthy whore but ends with him saying that he wants to crush her between his arms. They were weird (but that never stopped Nappy from fucking bitches on the side).

>>1571906
>Implying fucking Napoleon is what liberated Poland
Napoleon already had a streak of creating ethnic-based nations as French puppets (Slovenia and the like), the Poles were loyal allies of the Revolution from the very start with a close personal tie to Napoleon (Polish Legion in Italy) and on top of all that Napoleon knew when bitches ain't worth it (the Prussian queen offered her pregnant, used up vajayjay to Napoleon. He wrote back to Josephine that he couldn't afford to "play the gallant" due to political considerations).

I don't know what kind of weird, East Prussian morality you need to follow to make prostitutes heroes, but that shit doesn't fly in the civilized world.

>>1571443
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2473426/Life-story-Napoleans-secret-weapon--Jos-phine-Bonaparte.html

>All the while, Joséphine was Napoleon’s helpmate, gaining the trust of the various parties that he needed for his aims. He could not have triumphed without her. Where he was gruff and often aggressive, she was gentle, smoothing over situations at court and lulling the elite into believing he would protect them.
>this is what women actually believe
the only important woman in nappy's life was his mother

File: 1813% done with this shit.png (290KB, 754x554px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 754x554px

>>1571984
>the only important woman in nappy's life was his mother
And even she refused to be present at his coronation. Hell, didn't one of his sisters fuck Wellington after the whole deal was over?

Napoleon's life story only proves bitches aer incredibly unreliable. It was only his male generals, tied to him by the blood of the covenant rather than the water of the womb, that remained loyal to him until the bitter end.

Fuck Grouchy though, fuck Bernadotte too.

>>1571443
Because for all their quarrelling and cheating on each other, he truly did love her.

Whether or not she did is another matter, I believe she grew to love him later in life, but early on she was repulsed by him.

>>1571761
>>Napoléon was not ugly or a manlet.
he had sts, the one which gives you pimples/scArs

>>1571998
one of a general disclosed his plans to invade britain, to a british mistress

File: 1468660422333.jpg (123KB, 750x901px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 750x901px

>>1571965
>I don't know what kind of weird, East Prussian morality you need to follow to make prostitutes heroes, but that shit doesn't fly in the civilized world.

So I read her Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz

>Louise herself would be used in Nazi propaganda as an example of the ideal German woman.

So the ideal German women throws herself on French cocks. Topkek.

He fell in love.

Romantic love makes you dumb. Romantic love is the kind of feeling that you should try to be free from. You should really not choose your spouse based on love.
Had Napoleon chose a better wife, he would have a better life and more kids.

But he believed in "muh dick" instead and the result was this.

(also, when you get older, you will see that after 10 years, your dream girl may become a panzer)

>with two kids
One of those two children whom then married his brother. So it wasn't all in vain, and that brother became Louis, King of Holland, father to the dearly beloved Louis-Napoléon III.

>>1572144
>But he believed in "muh dick" instead and the result was this.

Literally the opposite of what happened. OP is asking why he didn't pick some younger, hotter virgin.

>>1572144
>love is a socio-economic discourse

>>1572165
>love is a socio-economic discourse

Love isn't. Marriage, and procreation are.

>>1572144
>He fell in love.
>But he believed in "muh dick"

So which is it, dumbass?

>>1572186
Romantic love and lust are one and the same. There is no difference.

>>1572225

I know you're probably just being edgy on purpose, but it still makes me really sad that you might actually believe that.

>>1572230
>Muh feels
Give me any reason to believe romantic love is more than that. Do you actually believe it to e some kind of powerful, metaphysical force that can exert influence on the physical world? Did you grow up entirely on Disney films?

>>1572186
They are the same. Biologically speaking, romantic love is lust. It also has similar effects to cocaine.

>>1572239
>all this edge

Do you think all those happily married for 50 years couples are just horny for saggy flesh? I'm sorry your parents had a bad marriage and the girl you liked ignores you.

>>1571446
>>1571460

wtf i hate napoleon now

>>1572245
>Biologically speaking, romantic love is lust.

t. a scientist, I swear

>>1572239

Different anon, but are we talking about romantic love as in fiction, or can it also apply to a couple of 10+ years.

Because If it's the latter, some differences between love and lust:

> Compromising both of your individual hopes and wishes to work as a unit
> Dropping all social masks when around someone
> Complete trust and high esteem when asking for advice
> Reams of intertwined personal history
> Knowing exactly how to get each others rocks off in as efficiently a manner as possible

>>1572248
They don't feel romantic love at this point, but another kind.

>>1572253
Look for any book on the science of love.

>>1572254
There are two very different "loves". Romantic love is one of them. It is lust and last one or two years. The other one is the one that people married for decades feel.

>>1572258
>They don't feel romantic love at this point, but another kind.

So romantic love is lust because you've defined it that way and everything else doesn't count. Yeah, you lose the argument. Bye.

>Look for any book on the science of love.

Yeah I'm sure you've read lots of books on the subject you fucking faggot.

>>1572248
>all those happily married for 50 years couples
That are going extinct ever since no-fault divorce became a thing. And about half of our current generation will never marry.

Face it, unless social institutions specifically create an additional advantage, love = lust.

>>1572281

> Social institutions create an additional advantage

I think that you are correct that social pressure has forced the number of marriages up in the past.

But I'd be surprised to see below 33% of the population unmarried in 40 years time though. Kids, buying a home, and finances in general tend to push for partnerships, even among homosexual couples.

I guess we'll see.

>>1572281
>That are going extinct ever since no-fault divorce became a thing.

Counterfactual, divorce rate had been declining for 30 years and average marriage has never been happier

>>1572301

Source?

>>1572294
>below 33%
That's a pathetically low bar for a supposedly universal force/sentiment. But I know why you're not putting that bar at 50%: because you know marriage without social or legal force behind it is a dying institution.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10886172/Half-of-20-year-olds-will-never-marry-in-devastating-trend.html

>>1572301
>divorce rate had been declining for 30 years
Might have something to do with less people marrying. Less marriage automatically means less divorces.

>and average marriage has never been happier
I'm going to need a citation on this. I do have a citation that rains on your parade though...
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-science-behind-behavior/201511/why-are-so-many-indian-arranged-marriages-successful
Arranged marriages are more likely to succeed than those based on "love"(/lust). If what Hollywood wants us to believe is true, then arranged marriages should be disasters and the ones based on "twue wuv" everlasting bastions. What we see is the exact opposite.

>>1572275
What?

What I mentioned is the scientific mainstream position on love. The love of a couple that is just starting is different from the love they have when they are together for 40 years.

As it turns out, real life is different from Hollywood movies.

Maybe she was his intimate friend and a woman actually worth talking to (EXTREMELY RARE). Power politics must be stressful. Maybe he need someone to open up and vent every night before bed, rather than a dumb and mute barbie doll.

>>1572374
>supposedly universal force/sentiment.

Whoa there buddy, your words (or some other Anons) but not mine.

I'm of the opinion marriage is not for most people. It's a discipline of sorts, and I think we agree that expecting 1-in-2 couples to swear to never have sex with another person, and to officially engage in 2-person communism, for the rest of their natural lives is a bit optimistic.

>>1571443
>the only impressive Frenchman is also a cuck
Kek

>>1571998
>male generals, tied to him by the blood of the covenant
sounds pretty jewish m8 are you trying to trick me?

>>1572421
Of course not. Trust me this mortgage will be good for you.

>>1571998
>>1572421
I read that as male genitals, thinking: wew lad, at least they remained loyal to him.

>>1572410
For thousands of years people were capable of doing this.

>>1572239
Disclaimer:not the guy you're replying to

>Give me any reason to believe romantic love is more than that.
If you're not autistic then you should have some lived experiences that contradict this. I've experienced Romantic love once in my life. I experience lust every time I go outside on a sunny day.

>Do you actually believe it to e some kind of powerful, metaphysical force that can exert influence on the physical world?
No but I would imagine the physiological phenomenon of falling in love is different to the physiological phenomenon of lust, and I know for a fact that the mental feeling is different. If you have a source contradicting this I would love to see it because either you're using some autistic definitions or you're telling me the sky is yellow and the pope is a muslim.

>>1572245
>Biologically speaking, romantic love is lust.
source

>>1572464
>lived experience

>>1572258
>Look for any book on the science of love.
"dude just read a book lmao"

If you're seriously telling me that this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

is the same as this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_desire

you need a source m8

>>1572480
>>lived experience
yes, experiences are generally the only source for emotions. You can't measure feelings unfortunately, you'll just have to trust me, though I think the number of people who have fallen in love is a decent sample size. It's why psychology isn't the most accurate science but it's all we have to work with.

Now, do you have any actual arguments, or better yet, a source for the absurd claim you're making.

>>1572486
Read "Mating Intelligence" by SB Kaufman.

>>1572454

If we're discussing Western Europe and the Medditerean, agreed.

But the relatively large threat of social stigma coupled with the inability of their offspring to inherit property for the majority of that time likely inflated those numbers somewhat.

>>1572514
I found a pdf and I'm reading it now, you better not be bullshitting making me read this shit if it's not relevant.

>>1572514
>>1572556
okay, so far this seems entirelt irrelevant and seeing as it's a long as fuck book it's not feasible to read it in time for this argument. Could you show me the relevant chapters or give me a tl;dr of his findings? because out of what I've read none of it is relevant in the slightest and he doesn't even begin to suggest that love=lust. This book is about selection strategies, and the role human intelligence plays in that. It has nothing to do with love and lust being equal

>>1571443
>ITT: fucktards who think "napoleon could have married anyone he wanted, he was the emperor!!"

You idiots do realise he married her in 1796, days before heading off to take command of the army in Italy? At the time she was a wealthy widow with useful political connections, and he was genuinely going crazy for her. The better question would more be why Josephine married him.

>>1572657
Yet even when he became emperor, she proved herself to be a disloyal whore. The question isn't why Napoleon dropped her for fresh Austrian pussy, it's why he didn't do it earlier.

>>1571601

didn't he write her every single day?

>>1572514
>>1572486
only women know how to love:

love of men towards women = love of women towards children = utopian unconditional love

love of men towards children (= an aid to retire and stop their suffering) = love of women towards men = utility towards more pleasures and less pains

>>1572793

This doesn't get any less stupid no matter how many times you post it.

>>1572793
>only women know how to love

Actually, only men are capable of the highest possible love. Women are too often like children to really know the ideal.

t. Plato

>>1572686
Well before he married the Austrian. He had loads of mistresses.

>>1572686
Because he loved her. Maybe he fell in love with an idea of her that he constructed rather than the actual person, who didn't seem to reciprocate. It's a human failing for romantic types.

>>1571651
>chess

Bullshit, Napoleon was a shit chess player

Everybody would have beat him at this game

>>1571443
>what is love?

>>1573952
>It's a human failing for romantic types
I'd say it's a cautionary tale, that even great men can fall for the mental delusion of romantic love.

>>1574543
Yeah, true. He was even defeated by a machine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Turk#M.C3.A4lzel_and_the_machine
I want this "being good at chess makes you a good general" meme to end.

>>1571443
Because he was a manlet and couldn't get anything better.