La Chanson de la Victoire (The Song of Victory): La Petite Arpenteuse (Non, SV, you are a General of France in the Napoleonic War!)

Parlez-vous français?

  • Oui, je parle très bien français!

    Votes: 162 14.3%
  • Un peu.

    Votes: 188 16.6%
  • What? Francis? Nope.

    Votes: 330 29.1%
  • What? Oh, don't be silly, my dear!

    Votes: 161 14.2%
  • ¿El español es lo suficientemente bueno?

    Votes: 86 7.6%
  • Ich verstehe dich irgendwie.

    Votes: 64 5.6%
  • Я очень хорошо говорю по-русски.

    Votes: 64 5.6%
  • 我听不懂。

    Votes: 35 3.1%
  • 何を言っているのですか?

    Votes: 28 2.5%
  • nuqneH pa'!

    Votes: 10 0.9%
  • فرانسه بلدنستم

    Votes: 7 0.6%

  • Total voters
    1,135
Therein lies the problem. Codified and not permanent is all nice and good until the guy decides to say "fuck the rules" and seize power because he's got the army backing him up.

If the man you give the power to doesn't have the honor to step down when the crisis is over... they tend to become dictators and Monarchs.

Just look at what happened with Napoleon in OTL, or Ceaser and Augustus.

Exactly why I would never trust anyone in this position in real life. But in-quest, we're on-route to being "Republic Insurance". So long as the board is willing to stand up to Nappy when the time comes, we can keep him honest. If we're friends with the other Marshals, then all the better.

The more we build our reputation, the more battles we win, the more political capital we gain. That can be used later when/if Nappy goes full Augustus.
He's got too much ambition to stay in his line without us pointing a gun at him.
I'm fine with that arrangement, and if he presses his luck then we march on Paris. (We just need to try not to go full Sylla and Marius in that scenario)
 
Last edited:
He's got too much ambition to stay in his line without us pointing a gun at him.
Therein lies your assumption that Napoleon would bend to the whims of humans with guns.
The man wouldn't be deterred by the chilling bite of Nature itself; what chance does a firearm have? (Well, I mean, he didn't make it out of the winter intact, but neither would he with the firearm)
 
Imagine making someone a martyr to punish them.
A more tragic ending would have been sending her to live the rest of her life on a rock on the opposite side of the world from both Napoleon and France, in the Pacific Ocean. Fading away into the waves as she tries in vain to return to all she lost and bled for.
...
Too tragic?
The problem for the kings was two-fold: She was the mother of the heirs to Napoleon's Empire, and a threat to power, as (in this timeline) She has 25 reputation, known throughout all of Europe as one of the greatest generals before Napoleon (Because Napoleon could do everything right, and was lucky as fuck) and most important of all: young enough, healthy enough and popular enough to take command of the French Army against the Bourbons (like Napoleon did) for Napoleon or one of her children, and just continue ruling in either a regency or the Marshal of France keeping it safe from Europe.

And after Waterloo, and with the Congress of Vienna, and Tallyrand playing everyone for chumps, (Because Talleyrand is awesome) negotiating a settlement to allow the Bonapartes to keep the throne if Napoleon and his children never took up arms against Europe again.

Thérèse was just way to damn popular with the masses to exile, for the Soldiers would mutiny to get her back as their Marshal, To pardon, as that would show weakness to Napoleon's wife, and cause even more unrest amongst the French people (She would never swear loyalty to a king who just tried to murder her kids).

So the only thing they could do to get even a semblance of control was to Martyr Thérèse cause if they didn't, they would use her and Napoleon as the symbols to keep fighting against the Bourbons.

In the end, all it does is start another revolution.
You're horrible. Pass me some of that Angst juice. :p

Though you can also end the story with a bittersweet ending. Both Therese and Napoleon looking out at the sea every day, hoping to one day meet each other again, only to have it fulfilled when they die at the same time and hearing each other's voices.

Kind of like the Cowherd and the Weaver Girl story but they'll only reunite in the end.
No: It would be more like this

Exiled:

in the end, the French Crown decided it was better to let you live, both in shame and in guilt, far away from home. The Marquis de Lafayette, a man you had only known briefly in his final days on earth, had prepared you a small villa in New Orleans, prepared for you and Napoleon for the time when you both decided it would be better to end on the highest of highs.

But you were forced to go alone. Without your husband, without your children... without any one of the old friends and allies that you had come to known in your time in the army.

The remainder of your life was spent in your home. Not alone of course. The young women of the states were more than accommodating, asking you questions, interviewing you, and one of them... some girl you never quite the name, to write your memoirs for you, assisting you as your hands could never stop shaking, your ability to write severely hampered.

"Thérèse Auclair The Marshal of France: A Memoir of A Believer"

You tried in vain to see Napoleon again, to sail to Saint Helena and see the man you loved one last time.

But it was too late. He was dead in 1821... an affliction unknown to his doctors had taken him in his sleep.

Louis Antoine Fauvelet de Bourrienne, Napoleon's secretary, and one of his oldest friends came to you to deliver the news.

You wept for hours in the man's arms, before he told you his final words.

"'France, army, head of the army, my children, Thérèse."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thérèse Auclair lived for thirty more years after the Death of Napoleon, long enough to see the Bourbons ousted from power and her nephew take the throne.

He offered her a chance to come home, and Thérèse Accepted and undertook the long, arduous journey to her homeland.

But on the ship home, she was struck with a fever that ravaged her body until she was nothing more than a husk of her former self, being barely able to speak and move without assistance.

She returned to her homeland on January 15th, 1852, to heroes welcome, as the last surviving Marshal of France, at the age of 79.

She would wave to the crowd, and hug her son, but the only thing she did was go to her husband's tomb,
Les Invalides, and saluted his body, before weeping alone.

She would die three days later.

She was interred in Les Invalides with full military honors, next to her husband, and Emperor.

Her name, along with Napoleon's would be carved into the Arc de Triomphe.

On her Tomb, it is written:

"For the Republic, I Gave Youth. For Emperor, I gave Honor. For Family, I Gave Love. For France, I Give Everything."
 
Last edited:
How was knowledge of cancer at the time? Would Napoleon have known about it killing him eventually?
If so, some last words could be "I am doomed, like my father, to die of an unavoidable curse. I cannot promise that I will see you again after we are separated, Thérèse... though, let the waves carry my thoughts and yours, so that one day, this may all end well, and then, we shall be reunited."
You wept for hours in the man's arms, before he told you his final words.

"'France, army, head of the army, my children, Thérèse."
She would wave to the crowd, and hug her son, but the only thing she did was go to her husband's tomb, Les Invalides, and saluted his body, before weeping alone.

She would die three days later.

You guys are way too good at this.
 
in the end, the French Crown decided it was better to let you live, both in shame and in guilt, far away from home. The Marquis de Lafayette, a man you had only known briefly in his final days on earth, had prepared you a small villa in New Orleans, prepared for you and Napoleon for the time when you both decided it would be better to end on the highest of highs.
Hey, not a bad retirement plan--
But you were forced to go alone.
We won't go quietly. The Legion Monarchs can count on that.
 
So I'm playing Napoleon Total War.

Do not Disturb: I am trying to learn have fun while commanding Napoleon. :V
 
[X] Plan The Rhine Is Red
-[X] Now: Rest is for the weak! Push now, while they are on the back foot!
-[X] Keep all as is.
-[X] No Prisoners: They're soldiers, and so are we. If we are willing to die for our ideals, should they not be, too? (---reputation, +++Republican Sentiments, ---Monarchist Sentiments, will become notorious, which brings great fear; as useful as it is a burden)



Death to the German swine, the reactionaries, the monarchist hangers-on!
 
So I'm playing Napoleon Total War.

Do not Disturb: I am trying to learn have fun while commanding Napoleon. :V
if france goes empire we could have a parliament. the parliament limits the power of the emperor and the emperor the power of the parliament
i mean do you know of the corruption that a parliament has.secret deals with bussinesmen are done all the time and some of the people that are part of it dont even care about the populace
a monarchy isnt a bad form of goverment since the rulers actually care about the country and their people and will do everything to make their people prosper(since it is hereditary)
we just need to limit the power of the emperor so he needs the parliament and the power of the parliament so they will need the emperor
this creates a system where if the parliament is too corrupt the emperor can abolish it(with evidence) and order the formation a new one and the parliament can stop actions of the emperor that will have a negative impact to the country
 
[] Scare Tactics: We should try to scare them as much as possible into surrender. Breaking their morale is enough. Breaking their bodies beyond what is necessary is ludicrous. Those who surrender will be allowed to go without their weapons. They've done enough for this battle, and will spread word of what happened. (++reputation, may be seen as soft by some, but will gain the gratitude of some German people)
getting some goodwill with germans is a good thing
 
i mean do you know of the corruption that a parliament has.secret deals with bussinesmen are done all the time and some of the people that are part of it dont even care about the populace
You mean like the old royal family did?

"Rich people can buy political influence" is the case in any political system. Hmm, maybe not communism, since, you know, all the rich people are in the gulag. :V
a monarchy isnt a bad form of goverment since the rulers actually care about the country and their people and will do everything to make their people prosper(since it is hereditary)
Meanwhile, in reality, "Benevolent Philosopher Kings" are a fantasy, kings don't really care about the people or their prosperity (and if they do, the have a really shitty way of showing it) and the only monarchies that actually work nowadays are constitutional monarchies where the monarch is virtually powerless and elected representatives hold all the power.

Seriously, where does this idealized view of monarchs somehow caring more about the country/people come from? Have we learned nothing from history? What are people going to support next, "moderate feudalism"?
this creates a system where if the parliament is too corrupt the emperor can abolish it(with evidence) and order the formation a new one and the parliament can stop actions of the emperor that will have a negative impact to the country
Which will only result in power struggles that inevitably end with one side getting on top of the other, permanently. Or a system that's completely dysfunctional as both try to gain power over the other, that's also possible.
 
Last edited:
Seriously, where does this idealized view of monarchs somehow caring more about the country/people come from? Have we learned nothing from history? What are people going to support next, "moderate feudalism"?
and democracies arent idealised?there have been countless monarchs that cared for their people just because democracy is prevalent nowadays it doesnt mean it is a better system
also in this kind of system both the monarch and the parliament are accountable
you know there are laws like <<the monarch cant take rigths away from the parliament and vice versa>>there will be clear lines on what the emperor can and cant do without their approval
and what the parliament can and cant do without his approval
its a system that balances their power without giving too much to one or the other

Which will only result in power struggles that inevitably end with one side getting on top of the other, permanently. Or a system that's completely dysfunctional as both try to gain power over the other, that's also possible.
perhaps but power strruggles happen in every system that exists and will exist
that is just the nature of humanity
 
Last edited:
Thought this said "The Rhine Is Bad"... I need better glasses.
if france goes empire we could have a parliament. the parliament limits the power of the emperor and the emperor the power of the parliament
i mean do you know of the corruption that a parliament has.secret deals with bussinesmen are done all the time and some of the people that are part of it dont even care about the populace
a monarchy isnt a bad form of goverment since the rulers actually care about the country and their people and will do everything to make their people prosper(since it is hereditary)
we just need to limit the power of the emperor so he needs the parliament and the power of the parliament so they will need the emperor
this creates a system where if the parliament is too corrupt the emperor can abolish it(with evidence) and order the formation a new one and the parliament can stop actions of the emperor that will have a negative impact to the country
Interesting checks and balanced, though two sides just make a seesaw. America might be on the right track with that whole three-part division of executive, legislative, and judicial. (A Tripartite?)
Meanwhile, in reality, "Benevolent Philosopher Kings" are a fantasy
That's why I stick to Crusader Kings 2, where I can play out my fantasies as a benevolent ruler of my people who invests his money into his naion to grow it and let the people prosper under my successive leadership of brilliant kings and queens.
perhaps but power strruggles happen in every system that exists and will exist
that is just the nature of humanity
Such is life.
In the immortal words of Robespierre:
"You can't have power struggles... if there's no power, only Terror. *taps forehead*"

Oh, and votes close in a little over 10 hours!
 
Last edited:
That's why I stick to Crusader Kings 2, where I can play out my fantasies as a benevolent ruler of my people who invests his money into his naion to grow it and let the people prosper under my successive leadership of brilliant kings and queens.
Benevolent rulers don't have little kids murdered or marry their sister as part of an eugenic breeding program to create Genius heirs. :V

Man, CK2 can get weird.
 
Interesting checks and balanced, though two sides just make a seesaw. America might be on the right track with that whole three-part division of executive, legislative, and judicial. (A Tripartite?)
could have the justice system be independent (justice-monarch-parliament) at least thats the way in my country and works pretty well no one is above the law
 
Last edited:
Benevolent rulers don't have little kids murdered or marry their sister as part of an eugenic breeding program to create Genius heirs. :V

Man, CK2 can get weird.
No, it's just Pragmatism, and keeping it in the family so lands never fall beyond your realm because you were stupid enough to marry outside of it.

Get it right noob :V
 
That's why I stick to Crusader Kings 2, where I can play out my fantasies as a benevolent ruler of my people who invests his money into his naion to grow it and let the people prosper under my successive leadership of brilliant kings and queens.
so have you seen the ck3 trailer (i was expecting some more dlcs before it happened)(meanwhile in the background an imperialist cries :( )
 
Benevolent rulers don't have little kids murdered or marry their sister as part of an eugenic breeding program to create Genius heirs. :V

Man, CK2 can get weird.
That's where the Sly Blood bloodline comes in!
"Murder? What murder? Surely you jest!"
could have the justice system be independent (justice-monarch-parliament) at least thats the way in my country and works pretty well no one is above the law
I'm thinking something like a military arm for the judicial branch, so that justice can be carried out without interference. We can call them the Daredevils or something.
so have you seen the ck3 trailer (i was expecting some more dlcs before it happened)(meanwhile in the background an imperialist cries :( )
I've seen it yeah, the number of included features in the base ck3 seems pretty decent compared to base ck2, so not much to complain about there. They'll be more creative with their DLCs, I believe.
 
Having a strict separation between the executive and legislative is just asking for trouble. Nobody likes cohabitation. Much better is a parliamentary system where the executive is selected by the legislative and can be dismissed with a vote of no-confidence of the latter.
No, it's just Pragmatism, and keeping it in the family so lands never fall beyond your realm because you were stupid enough to marry outside of it.

Get it right noob :V
 
Having a strict separation between the executive and legislative is just asking for trouble. Nobody likes cohabitation. Much better is a parliamentary system where the executive is selected by the legislative and can be dismissed with a vote of no-confidence of the latter.
no its called common sense the judge cant be bribed or forced to call someone who is clearly not guilty <<guilty>>and someone who has done crimes against the nation and its people <<innocent>>

here is my nations system that i was talking about
 
Last edited:
What do judges being bribed have to do with the relationship between the executive and the legislative?
everything because if the two systems are indistinguishable from each other then the justice system is going to be abused
from people in the parliament to eliminate political opponents
what will they do to accomplish that.bribes.
such as what happened to louis the xvi(i know how could our glorious republic do something like that)(i mean did anyone expect the court to find him innocent it was obviously a set up)but really if there is no seperation to ensure no corruption happens it will get abused
 
Last edited:
everything because if the two systems are indistinguishable from each other then the justice system is going to be abused
from people in the parliament to eliminate political opponents
Why? Why do you think that complete separation of the executive and legislative is a requirement for an independent judiciary? Are you claiming that a parliamentary system, whereby the executive gets elected by the legislative instead of through a direct election, results in a judiciary that is somehow not independent?
such as what happened to louis the xvi(i know how could our glorious republic do something like that)(i mean did anyone expect the court to find him innocent it was obviously a set up)but really if there is no seperation to ensure no corruption happens it will get abused
Of course they wouldn't declare him innocent. Want to know why? Because he was guilty, and obviously so. Louis Capet had it coming.
 
Back
Top