well
after all, he did win more battles then Julius cesar, Hannibal, and Alexander the great all combined.

ok since the poll didnt work
napoleon
1 the great
2 the evil
3 the liberator
4 other

I think I know where this one is going: after a few posts praising Napolean, he compares him to Hitler.

What's the purpose of this thread?

nooooo
my poll didnt work!! wtf!!

i even typed in the poll and all and hit submit but it didnt work!! why!!?

What's the purpose of this thread?
A good question. Is this where we just talk about Napoleon? Wouldn't it, then, fit better in the World History portion of the Colosseum?

well thear was saposed to be a poll

i vote for the great.
im sick of ppl compearing him to hitler, hes nothing like hitler for one.

How about "Napoleon, the guy who apparently treated Jews decently to such a degree that my history book bothers to mention it"? :p

Nice of him.

I'm just angry that he never actually said "Able was I, ere I saw Elba" [pissed]

He lost every campaign he embarked on, lied about major defeats, and used people like tools. Then he gets recognized as the great hero of the French people. Yeah, some great man.

He wasnt even French.

He lost every campaign he embarked on, lied about major defeats, and used people like tools. Then he gets recognized as the great hero of the French people. Yeah, some great man.

And he wasn't even French!

That's awesome. :lol:

He lost every campaign he embarked on

Not sure where you'd get this wrong idea.

He lost every campaign he embarked on, lied about major defeats, and used people like tools. Then he gets recognized as the great hero of the French people. Yeah, some great man.

Losing all the campaigns (which he technically didn't do) isn't that bad considering he had the greatest powers of Europe allied against him, and he still was the greatest general of the era. He was bound to be defeated, just like Hitler, but what he did accomplish was amazing. He brought prestige back to the French army and peoples, and gave them an awesome national pride, and he installed civil codes and military awards for loyal and brave service. He truly was a great man, not necessarily moral or completely admirable, but he was great.

I would say that Napoleon was a military genius.....and like the vast majority of military greats had a long string of incredible victories only to be eclipsed by a defeat so utter as to wipe away all previous successes.

How many other men in history can say they lost an army of over 600,000 men in an ill-planned winter war in Russia?

How many other men in history can say they lost an army of over 600,000 men in an ill-planned winter war in Russia?

We need a compendium:
Never Fight a land war in Asia
Never Fight a winter war in Russia
Never Fight a nuclear war with America

Got any others? :D

But I truly think that a man who gave the French (Despite his non-French heritage) the dignity of winning a battle needs to be remembered forever. Long live Napolean Dynamite! Err... Napolean Bonaparte!

And he gets kudos for eliminating the Holy Roman Empire. :king:

He lost every campaign he embarked on, lied about major defeats, and used people like tools. Then he gets recognized as the great hero of the French people. Yeah, some great man.

Replace French by American, and a certain recent American president comes to mind ;)

Replace French by American, and a certain recent American president comes to mind ;)
Clinton? Can't be Bush, no one likes him.

Naopleon the Great. He revolutionized warfare and was a brilliant strategist. He was at his most brilliant 1795 to 1807. later successes were harder to come by for a variety of reasons. He was beaten at Waterloo by the Prussians, not the English.

Not sure where you'd get this wrong idea.

Well if you exclude Egypt, Russia, and Western Europe you may have a point there. :p

We must turn to the masters for wisdom:


War does not make one great

well
after all, he did win more battles then Julius cesar, Hannibal, and Alexander the great all combined.
Yeah but did he get a month named after him?

Also, he was ousted by his own people and died alone on an island.

Wow, I just read that Napolean and Hitler share their birthday. Weird. :crazyeye:

Moved to history

I don't think he was that great, certainly not by the end of his career anyway. He wasn't that evil, at least no more than most monarchs with political ambitions. I wouldn't call him that much of a liberator, to some countries maybe but not to Spain for example.

Comparing him to Hitler directly is insane, he didn't gas people, didn't work them to death in camps, didn't shoot/starve/beat to death large numbers of POWs, didn't start using 10 year olds to defend Paris, didn't have generals shot out of hand for not doing their "duty" to him and so on. To the people of his era, especially the English he was evil, a real Bogey man and therefore considered at the time by some to be the era's equivalent of Hitler, this doesn't mean he does compare to Hitler though.

After all Napoleon actually had some military talent to begin with rather than being a gambling amateur with no talent and even less concept of practical warfare. Just about the only way they compare militarily is their inability to understand or care about logistics and their attempts to control battles from afar. The ridiculous lack of planning and preparation both showed on undertaking the invasion of Russia is quite breathtaking. Oh yes and they both inclined towards arrogance, only Napoleon actually had the talent to back it up.

Oh and Napoleon was French, Corsica belonged to France at the time he was born, that's like saying someone born in the Channel Isles isn't British or on Hawaii isn't American.

He was beaten at Waterloo by the Prussians, not the English.

That would be like saying the Germans in WW2 didn't loose to the Russians, they lost to the Western allies.

He was born in Corsica, but was Italian. His original name was "Napoleone Bonaparte", with a "eh" sound (think Canadian) at the end. He changed it when he went to the French Military Academy, because France and the Italian states have never gotten along, and he didnt want to draw that kind of attention to himself.

He was born in Corsica, but was Italian

Well first Italy didn't exist when he was born, Corsica belonged instead to Genoa before France. They transfered control of the island to France a year before Napoleon was born, so he was firmly French. He may have changed his name and come from an "Italian" family but he's still considered French, just as a person born in the Channel Islands is still considered British.

My name is Scotish, it doesn't make me born North of the border. The most important test is what nationality the person considers themselves to be and Napoleon would have clearly thought of himself as French.

Actually, his original name was Napoleone Buonaparte, later made french... And during his first twenty years of his life the only goal in his life was the independence of Corsica, and was full of hatred against the french invaders. This can be verified in the amount of permissions he got from his military school to attend meetings and participate in Corsica political life, but he couldn´t gain support for his cause in his island, so he decided to become a full french, surviving the Revolution and gaining positions inside the french army. And there is no comparison with Hitler ok? Most of the brittish demonized Napoleon for a long time, just like the allies did with Hitler, calling him a madman... No madman gets to be the absolute leader of one of the most advanced and powerful nations of the planet...

just like the allies did with Hitler, calling him a madman
Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law) strikes again! we got a whole two pages this time, congrats to us!

He was a military genius whose pride and ambition got the better of him, which led to a downhill descent into defeat. Pretty much all absolute monarchs on top of the world tend to be that way.

The British didn't have to demonise Hitler or claim he was insane, Hitler was insane. Just because he achieved some things before his insanity and incompetence was exposed doesn't mean he wasn't either of those things. Just take a look at his actions during the last 6 months of the war and you'll fast get the impression that he was quite mad and any notion that he was a military genius will be quickly removed.

Achieving control of a country can often be as much about your choice of colleagues as it can be about your own abilities.

It is arguable (though certainly not by me) that Hitler was driven mad by the plots made against him.

He was no genius, though, that was clear from the beginning of the war.

Some people cling to that notion though, hence why I would suggest watching the Downfall or reading Stalingrad/Berlin by Beevor.

Downfall is Hitler at the end of his career, though.

In addition to all his other problems, Hitler was medicated up to the eyeballs by a charlatan doctor in his later years, which made him even more erratic. He was also injured in the assassination attempt (although that doesn't explain Stalingrad, which was eighteen months earlier).

Ah, so it's turned into a discussion about Hitler. Inevitable, I suppose.

Veering vaguely back onto topic, what about Napoleon's activities off the battlefield? I don't know much about how he fared simply as the ruler of France. Under him, did the country recover from the appalling couple of decades it had just had? What sort of laws did Napoleon pass? I know it's tempting to evaluate national leaders solely by how well they did in wars (this is the reason behind the otherwise incomprehensible belief on the part of most Britons that Churchill was a great prime minister) but it's really quite wrong-headed.

I'm not sure why some people insist Napoleon was not French. Hilter was Austrian, Stalin was Georgian. Does it matter? Not really.


Back on topic, beside being the only man to conquer whole continental Europe from Moscow to Madrid. Napoleon gave us the Baccalauréat, Code Civil, Lycées, Council of State. Just to name a few. Like all great men in history i'm sure his ego was too much at the end. You can't blame the defeat in Russia just on the weather.

Veering vaguely back onto topic, what about Napoleon's activities off the battlefield? I don't know much about how he fared simply as the ruler of France. Under him, did the country recover from the appalling couple of decades it had just had? What sort of laws did Napoleon pass? I know it's tempting to evaluate national leaders solely by how well they did in wars (this is the reason behind the otherwise incomprehensible belief on the part of most Britons that Churchill was a great prime minister) but it's really quite wrong-headed.
Think Caesar.

Most of Europe still sticks to the Code Napoleon or some derivation of it. Napoleon certainly helped shape the secular political institutions of Europe.

As for France there was any number of initiatives for education and science. Napoleon managed to mobilise science as a patriotic undertaking in new ways, that would become normal later. That's where things the Savants in Egypt, the military engineers of the École Polythechnique and the 1800 Baudin circumnavigation of the world come in.
His domestic economical policy wouldn't win high marks from laissez-faire capitalists, but certainly helped get France a lot of industrial and manufacturing competence. (Not least some very far-sighted industrial espionage on the mechanised British textile industry.)

Napoleon's great failing was of course all these wars he eventually failed to win, which weren't really too popular in the end. French intelligence would comment on the disparity with England, where the bockade led to steep unemployment but didn't even dent the popularity of War with France among the English public. While the French were sick and tired of it all and didn't really get why fighting Britiain in every which way was so crucial.

Napoleon´s duty as a statesman was remarkable. Besides the Napoleonic Code, wich spread all over Europe as the base for the legislation of the occupied countries, and brought back catholicism but subordinated to the State (the priests had to swore loyalty to the constitution), effectively separating Church from State.

There is always the fact that in the around 20 years napoleon was the leader of France the time spent in his country was something like 4 or 5 years. That means that if he could go himself to battle the great monarchies of europe leaving his home country, wich had a revolution a couple of years before, was because he achieved a great government and stabilty, without great riots and a destroyed economy...

Downfall is Hitler at the end of his career, though.

Stalingrad wasn't, Barbarossa wasn't, the declaration of war on America wasn't, the preliminaries to the holocaust weren't. Hitler was a ranting demagogue with virtually no military talent long before the attempts on his life and the quack you mention took its toll.

Back on topic, beside being the only man to conquer whole continental Europe from Moscow to Madrid.

That's an exaggeration, he didn't own all the land between those two cities for a start and others conquered more of Europe. Its debatable if he conquered Moscow since I don't count simply occupying its ruins for a short period followed by beating a hasty and disasterous retreat as conquering the place.

I still can´t follow the quack theory... He didn´t have militar talent, he opened a new front in Russia, the holocaust, etc... But those flaws and mistakes don´t qualify as crazy to me. I think everybody must understand that Hitler´s arise to power came by just repeating loudly what the majority of the german people thank at the time, the idea of the "vital space" was long way before 1930..

(One thing though: why don´t we make a new post about Hitler to save time ok?)

Well if you exclude Egypt, Russia, and Western Europe you may have a point there. :p


Last time I checked Italy, Bavaria, and Austria were in Western Europe, where he launched his his most sucessful campaigns.

Prussia as well. After the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt in October 1806, French forces under Napoleon occupied Prussia, entering Berlin on October 25, 1806.