What was Napoleon's justification for annexing Catalonia,

File: 250px-First_French_Empire_1812.svg.png (40KB, 250x253px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 250x253px

He probably just wanted to make it look bigger on the maps. Typical small man syndrome.

Prob just preparing for creating a new "Roman" empire like Charlemagne. Napoleon was a Ceasar and romaboo so it's kinda makes sense.

You don't need justification in the real world as long as you have military to back it up.

>>2584500
Uh, you do.

People living in those regions don't enjoy being ruled by foreigners. Why do you think it was so hard for russia to hold on to Poland, or Austria to hold on to hungary?

>>2584510
>People living in those regions don't enjoy being ruled by foreigners.
Which is why if you have the military to put down rebellions you can hold those lands. It was mostly just a conflict between power holding coalitions. The justification was getting your sides way.

>>2584510
Your starting to think rationally here mate. Napoleon, although I never knew the guy personally, came across as a bit of a stir crazy megalomaniac dictator. He probably thought that the local populaces would want to become francofied because of French culture being so superior. And the short man probably thought that his empire would last for so many centuries that ethnically French people would eventually settle in those areas and that eventually they would become more French than a suicide truck on Bastille day.

>>2584376
He wanted to create a French swastika.

Why do you think he hated the Brits so much? Because they constantly ddestroyed his dam that he was building in Northern Brittany towards Cornwall.

Just look at it >>2584433

>>2584376
To weaken the countries that declared war la him every 2 years.

people didn't give a shit who lived where until the latter half of the 19th century, and even then they didn't *really* give a shit.

>>2584376
Well I can't say for Catalonia, Germans and their barbarian kin to belong on the east side of the Rhine.

>>2584376
I can only give reason for the Netherlands. In 1795 the french march into the netherlands towards amsterdam with the idea to liberate the people of monarchistic tyrants. You can call Napoleon a dictator all you want, but your a dickfaced twat who rapes history because a) you are incapable of creating context and b) be nuanced c) your so blind for the perspective of time you stick present day terms on things of 200 ywars ago. It is ahistoric.

Now, the Netherlands never had a real monarchy since the start of 80 year war in 1568, after which it was a republic (united provinces). It had a monarchistic tendancy with the influence of the orange family, but they where chief of the army and had little executive power. Holland and the cities within the region was the most prosperous and dominatant region in the constellation. Thats why holland has become the same as the netherlands nowadays (which dutch people hate).

So, the united provinces were still a republic in 1795 when the french entered and were sure to not let a french biatch rule their land. So just before the french arrived in amsterdam, the dutch proclaimed revolution themselves and the batavian republic was proclaimed. As i came from the 'people' (read smart upperclass scheme), the french couldn't do shit about their indepence. It became a vasalstate though as they couldn't fight the french. So influence was set. In 1806, Napoleon wanted more control over the region and installed his brother Louis Napoleon as king of the netherlands. (So the first monarch of the netherlands was in fact french). But it remained independent! Louis was the king not Napoleon ( although his absolutistic tendencies which 'controled' louis were noticable). In spite of expectation the dutch loved louis. He learned dutch, pushed positive reform, was concerned with his subjects and indeed quit a fair ruler. He was a peoples king as well. In 1807 a ship with gunpowder exploded in Leiden and Louis Napoleon (1/2)

>>2585613
Rushed to the scene and helped the locals. Meanwhile there were quarrels with his brother. Louis didn't push general conscription, didn't push some heavy economical reforms, like the heavy ban on trade with england. As the low countries were (and are) a trading country, Louis realised the impact of such measures. The english could set foot on land in 1808 ( I belief) and Napoleon blamed his brother for neglecting his will. Eventhough Louis was the one who halted them. Anyway this and ome other factors ( I will regrain fromdetail from now) resulted in the loss of faith of Napoleon in his brother to rule the netherlands. So in 1810 the The Netherlands finally lost their independence as they became part of the political great extendend France. (2/2)

File: Napoleon.jpg (57KB, 300x265px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 300x265px

>>2584376
Classic claim of "Winner winner Chicken Dinner" solidifying it through a second claim of "Finders keepers, losers weepers"