Strange as may be the historical account of how some king or emperor, having quarreled with another, collects an army, fights his enemy's army, gains a victory by killing three, five, or ten thousand men, and subjugates a kingdom and an entire nation of several millions, all the facts of history (as far as we know it) confirm the truth of the statement that the greater or lesser success of one army against another is the cause, or at least an essential indication, of an increase or decrease in the strength of the nation--even though it is unintelligible why the defeat of an army--a hundredth part of a nation--should oblige that whole nation to submit.
Since the year 1805 we had made peace and had again quarreled with Bonaparte and had made constitutions and unmade them again, but the salons of Anna Pavlovna and Helene remained just as they had been--the one seven and the other five years before.
In 1807 he suddenly made friends with him, but in 1811 they again quarreled and again began killing many people.
Suddenly the diplomatists and monarchs nearly quarreled and were on the point of again ordering their armies to kill one another, but just then Napoleon arrived in France with a battalion, and the French, who had been hating him, immediately all submitted to him.
Many of them appropriated several houses, chalked their names on them, and quarreled and even fought with other companies for them.
He quarreled with the other sailors, and even with the captain.