secured political freedom for herself, nevertheless allied herself with Austria and Prussia and Russia to uphold the cause of absolute Royal power in Europe? It is customary with historians to attribute the Napoleonic wars to the ambition of Napoleon, for the nations which fought against him are loth to admit their own blood-guiltiness. But Napoleon was the soldier of the Revolution and fought for the principles of the Revolution; his opponents were the champions of absolute Royal power, and strove to maintain it in Europe. As we have said before it is not given to humanity to solve such questions without wars. But be it remembered that in the dreadful wars of over twenty years ending at Waterloo, Napoleon was fighting for the right principle, the allied powers for the wrong.[1]
If Europe was not completely enslaved again after Waterloo, it was not the fault of the allied powers. It is both painful and amusing to read what they tried to do. They placed the worthless Bourbons again in France. They forced back Italy under the thraldom of Austria. They cut up Germany into its numerous petty estates, and seated on each throne its petty despot.
- ↑ "The hostility of the European aristocracy caused the enthusiasm of Republican France to take a military direction, and forced that powerful nation into a course of policy which, however outrageous it might appear, was in reality one of necessity. Up to the treaty of Tilsit, the wars of France were essentially defensive; for the bloody contest that wasted the continent so many years was not a struggle for pre-eminence between ambitious powers, nor a dispute for some accession of territory, nor for the political ascendancy of one or other nation, but a deadly conflict to determine whether aristocracy or democracy should predominate; whether equality or privilege should henceforth be the principle of European governments." Napier's History of the Peninsular War.
