buy custom Analysis of the Napoleonic War essay

buy custom Analysis of the Napoleonic War essay The Napoleonic War refers to a sequence of wars that were pronounced against the Napoleon's French Empire between 1792 and 1815 by the opposing coalitions. The increasing discontent with the Feudal Government of France has led to the French Revolution in 1789, drawing the attention of every European nation. What followed was violence and worldwide involvement that triggered nonstop war for over two decades, as different competing empires tried to impose their opinions regarding power balance. The Napoleonic War era can be classified into two occurrences: The French Revolution, as well as the Napoleonic Empire. The revolution has led to the collapse of the old French Government, after which it was replaced by a series of vicious civilian administrations. The peak of the violence saw the king; King Louis and his queen being brutally murdered; an act which incited European nations to be against France and guarantee that they would not cooperate with it. The unsuccessful invasion of Russ ia by France in 1812 has led to the collapse of the French power. Napoleon troops successfully managed to conquer a major part of Europe and, consequently, Napoleon Bonaparte, who was an intelligent and charismatic army general, took over the control of France. Napoleons presence as the leader of France complicated the political landscape of Europe, and increased the environment for confrontation till one of the two conflicting sides was defeated. The Napoleonic Empire suffered a military defeat in 1815 at Waterloo, bringing to an end the Napoleon Wars and bringing back of a monarch to Paris. Carl Von Clausewitz's Paradoxical Trinity Clausewitz's Paradoxical Trinity is composed of a) pre-historic violence, hatred, and hostility which are considered as a blind natural force; b) the game of chance and probability, in which there is freedom for creative spirits to roam; and c) element of subordination, which is used as a policy to make the ruled see reason. That is to say, the passion that triggers a war must be intrinsic in the people; the extent of the game of talent and bravery in the realm of chance and probability is dependent on the specific character of the commandant and his army; while the political aims are left solely to the government. Therefore, Clausewitz's Paradoxical Trinity consists of the people, the commandant and his army, and government, and not violence, chance and reason as some people presume. The people are concerned with the nature of the war; the army is concerned with how the war is conducted, while the government is concerned with the purpose of the war. It is important to note that all the three magnets must be dedicated to war, in other case; the disproportion may result into a defeat. This is confirmed in the assertion by Clausewitz's that all the elements of the Paradoxical Trinity should be considered equally, despite their variable relationships and co-equal status. The strength of the relationship between the government and his military commanders determines greatly how effective the people are in employing foreign policy and military instruments in achieving the objectives of the war. In addition, the strength of the relationship of these magnets is dependent on the ability of the commander to communicate and people ability to understand the inherent linkage between nature, purpose and conduct of the war. Analysis of the Napoleonic War (1792-1815) From the Napoleons campaigns, it is apparent that the blind natural force, i.e. the violence that propelled the French troops across Europe to fight in the war, did not emanate from the people of France, but from general Napoleon himself, who had control over the army, as well as the government. Napoleons key military strategy was to identify and overcome the central force of the enemy. His aim was to break his opponents will to resist, making it easier for subsequent negotiations. This is evident in his own words when he said that he was confident that by crushing the central body of the enemy, the matters that followed would take care of themselves. Of importance to note, is the close attention he paid to choosing his generals, as well as how he calculated the logistical requirements of his campaigns. He also synchronized his operations by ensuring that his troops routinely used accurate watches and maps. Napoleons unsuccessful invasion of Russia in 1812 that has led to the collapse of the French power was a blunder that historians blame on poor logistical planning. He concentrated on the general picture of the war, devising the overall plans for the battle and giving directions on combined attacks, but leaving the vital decisions of tactical employment to his soldiers. Being the head of the government, he used his powers to incorporate the military, diplomatic and political dimensions to help him to succeed in the war. Clausewitz's Paradoxical Trinity of government was largely employed in the war, as all events were controlled by Napoleon, who was the head of the French Government. It can be said that the cooperation of the military and the government, was the reason behind Napoleons success in the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805. The failure of the Peace of Amiens resulted in the British Government forming the Third Coalition which included Sweden, Austria and Russia in April of the same year. Following threats to attack Britain, General Napoleon sent over 200,000 troops to the East. He also invented the use of self-contained army corps. He used six corps, with each corps strong enough to work independently. This helped the troops to progress along a broader front, facilitating logistics and enhancing the pace at which they advanced. Napoleon was personally in Germany commanding his troops, and with the support of a majority of states in South Germany, he progressed to meet the Austrians who had taken over the control of Bavaria. Napoleons troops encircled the Austrians, who decided to surrender 30,000 of their men, without any fight, in Ulm. Following the surren der of Austrians, the Russians retreated. Napoleons then focused its attention on the Prussia troops who had plans of invading France but were unprepared. After the Peace of Pressburg came to an end, Napoleon declared war on Prussian soldiers, completely destroying them and earning an early success. As seen above, Napoleon, as the head of the government, was concerned with winning the war (purpose), and he used his powers to instruct his military officers on whom and when to attack. However, without the coooperation of the troops, the battle would not have been successful. Therefore, it can be said that the strong relationship between the French military commandants and their army and the Napoleon government has lead to the success of the Battle of Austerlitz. Other than the use of military might, propaganda was also employed in fighting the Napoleonic War, especially in the French Revolution. The support of the masses was vital, and, therefore, British and French governments used propaganda to rally their citizens to have belief in their countries. Through propaganda, soldiers were encouraged to battle bravely, while civilians maintained working to provide their countries with everything they needed. The aim of propaganda was to create nationalism and loyalty in the people so that they would willingly want to fight and even die protecting their countries. The use of propaganda required the cooperation of the government and the people for it to be a successful strategy for winning the war. For instance, the British Government tried to create a bad picture of France in the minds of its citizens by making them believe that France was a bully, and that the French revolution was a foreign risk that was against changing the political ways of Eu rope. The Britishs nationalist propaganda exploited the variations between French and Britain, successfully managing to convince the British nationals to hate France, even if they did not have a chance to find out the truth for themselves. Consequently, British nationals developed a strong love for their culture and country and fought to protect their country. Napoleon also extensively and masterfully used propaganda to climb to power, legitimize his rule and establish his picture in the minds of his subjects as a symbol of posterity. His propaganda mechanisms involved severe censorship and exercising control over all aspects of art, books, theater, as well as the press. Napoleons aim was to be depicted as the person to bring peace and stability that was very much needed in France. It is important to take note of the gradual changes in the propaganda methods used during Napoleons reign. Initially, his focus was on his function as a soldier and a general in the army, but later on the propaganda changed to depict his role as a civic leader and emperor. He targeted the civilians to make them have a belief in him that he was the one to change France. Though it was unexpected, he managed to cultivate an association with the contemporary art community, even being actively involved in the commissioning and controlling every art production to achi eve his propaganda goals. In conclusion, I would say that all the three magnets of the paradoxical trinity were very influential in understanding the Napoleonic War (1792-1815). This is because the people, the military and the government were all dedicated to the success of the war. Even if general Napoleon was defeated in the end, he managed to succeed in some of the battles e.g. the Battle of Austerlitz. It was through cooperation and hard work of the military commandants and their army, and the peoples support that Napoleon managed to take over the rule of France and fought in the war. Therefore, the three magnets are inseparable, they are all important for the success of a war. Buy custom Analysis of the Napoleonic War essay

Gun Ownership by Country -- Americans Lead

Gun Ownership by Country Americans Lead The United States has the highest level of gun ownership per person of any country. This fact is startling but true. According to data compiled by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and analyzed by  The Guardian, Americans own 42 percent of all civilian guns in the world. This figure is especially startling when you consider that the U.S. makes up just 4.4 percent of the worlds population. Just How Many Guns Do Americans Own? The estimated tally in 2012, according to the UN, was 270 million civilian-owned guns in the U.S., or 88 guns per every 100 hundred people.  Unsurprisingly, given these figures, the U.S.  has the highest number of guns per capita (per person) and the highest rate of gun-related homicides of all developed countries: 29.7 per 1 million people. By comparison, no other developed countries come even close to those rates. Among the thirteen developed countries studied, the average rate of gun-related homicide is 4 per 1 million people. The developed nation with the rate closest to the U.S., Switzerland, has just 7.7 gun-related homicides per 1 million people. (There are other countries with higher rates of gun-related homicide per capita, but not among developed nations.) Gun rights advocates often suggest that the U.S. has high annual numbers of gun-related crime because of the size of our population, but these statistics which examine rates rather than totals prove otherwise. About a Third of American Households Own All Those Guns In terms of ownership, however, the rate of 88 guns per 100 people is rather misleading. In reality, the majority of civilian-owned guns in the U.S. are owned by a minority of gun owners. Just over a third of U.S. households own guns, but according to the 2004 National Firearms Survey, 20 percent of those households own a full 65 percent of the total civilian gun stock. American Gun Ownership Is a Social Problem In a society as saturated in guns as the U.S., its important to recognize that gun violence is a  social, rather than an individual or psychological problem. A 2010 study by professors Paul Appelbaum and Jeffrey Swanson published in  Psychiatric Services  found that just 3–5 percent of violence can be attributed to mental illness, and in most of these cases guns were not used. While those with certain types of serious mental illness are more likely than the general public to commit an act of violence, these individuals only make up a small percentage of people with mental illness: most people with a mental illness don’t engage in violent behavior. Moreover, individuals with mental illness are also at a higher risk of being victims of violence. According to data from the National Institute of Mental Health, alcohol is a much more significant contributing factor to the likelihood of whether someone will commit a violent act. Sociologists believe that gun violence is a social problem because it is socially created by support for laws and policies that enable gun ownership on a mass scale. It is justified and perpetuated by social phenomena too, like the widespread ideology that guns represent freedom  and the troubling discursive trope that guns make society safer, though overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. This social problem is also fueled by sensationalist news coverage and dangerous politicking focused on violent crime, leading the American public to believe that gun  crime is more common today than it was two decades ago, despite the fact that it has been on the decline for decades. According to a 2013 Pew Research Center survey, just 12 percent of U.S. adults know the truth. The connection between the presence of guns in a household and gun-related deaths is undeniable. Countless studies have shown that living in a home where guns are present increases ones risk of dying by homicide, suicide, or by gun-related accident. Studies also show that it is women who are at greater risk than men in this situation, and that guns in the home also increase the risk that a woman suffering domestic abuse will ultimately be killed by her abuser (see the extensive list of publications by Dr. Jacquelyn C. Campbell of Johns Hopkins University). So, the question then is, why do we as a society insist on denying the very clear connection between the presence of guns and gun-related violence? This is a pressing area of sociological inquiry if ever there was one.