Napoleon haunts France

[stormbind]

Exracts from BBC article:

Several exhibitions devoted to his memory have opened around Paris: at the Louvre, the Jacquemart museum and at Les Invalides, where he is buried.

Should he be remembered as a military genius and great French leader who laid the foundations of modern Europe?

Or was he a tyrant and mass murderer, who killed millions during his campaigns of conquest?

"He was against the English government of the day and its policy in Europe, so in that way, England was his first enemy.

"But at the same time he was a great fan of the English civil institutions and he was a big admirer of the British institution of the constitutional monarchy."

Full story

 

[TrailblazingScot]

he was a great fan of the English civil institutions

Indeed, like the Kaiser Wilheim and Hitler, Napoleon had some strange notions as regarding Britain. Hell, Napoleon actually tried to claim assylum in Britain after Waterloo as he thought that he would receive good treatment, which I suppose he did.

I too heard the BBC newstory on the "today" program this morning...I thought it was a nice quirky story, but little more than that.

As to whether he was a murderer, I'd say definitely not, but he was an conqueror who sought to use his splendid army to extend French hegemony. If conquerors are by definition murderers, then the leadership of the main opponents of Napoleon by way of Britain and Russia are also murderers.

 

[Keirador]

I think Napoleon gets a historically bad rap. I don't consider him a mass murderer, any more than I consider Abraham Lincoln a mass murderer. Yes, he caused deaths through wars he initiated, but death was not his intention, victory was. He was a relatively benign ruler to the peoples he conquered, and did great things for his country. He also actively spread ideas of freedom and republic. It is also unfair to say that he was a tyrant, because although he did rule as an autocratic, he only began his rule with popular approval. At every stage of his ascension to power, he held plebiscites, asking the people whether or not his authority should advance. He had overwhelming public approval. He was a military genius, an efficient administrator, and a tough but just ruler. Whats with all the malice directed toward Napoleon?

 

[Bronx Warlord]

He had balls to snatch the crown from the pope and put it on his own head.

 

[viper275]

I view him as a brilliant military leader and not that bad as a leader.

 

[Keirador]

He had balls to snatch the crown from the pope and put it on his own head.

It was a symbolic act demonstrating that he owed his success to no one but himself. Rather than have the Pope place the crown on his head, indicating his power came from another source, he coronated himself, showing that he alone was responsible for his actions.

 

[Bronx Warlord]

I'll give him credit for it, took a pair of brass ones.

 

[luiz]

He was a great military leader, who also brought many positive changes to France. He was also a tyrant who suffered from megalomania.

I would not call him a mass murderer, even though I'm sure he was a war criminal for modern standards. He definately did not show much compassion towards his enemies(the executions in Spain come to mind).

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Although he was a brilliant general ,the succes of the French army had many reason's ,sheer manpower and especially leadership based on quality ,opposed to many European army's that had leadership depending on ascendency.

That also showed during America's independancy war ,the average American leadership was of better quality than the English leadership of aristocratic ascendency. (Although England had a few good generals to from aristocratic background)

In addition ,morale was surely a factor ,Napoleon was addored by his troops and this can't be said of that many other army's of that time (certainly not the Russians for ex.) ,The French people and soldiers gennerally had the feeling that napoleon was fighting for them and not for the benifits of the Monarchy.

Was he a mass murderer because he conquered? Depends what you define by mass murderer ,the Romans exterminated whole people's to ,and Alexander the Great killed lot's of enemy troops ,their is a defining line between genocide and war ,i don't think what Napoleon did was genocide.
in addition ,i think there was a casius belli for his war's ,afterall France was sacked and gangbanged multiple times by foreign army's before his ascendency for the reason that the European Monarch's were afraid of the people's republic.I think that for many people that supported Napoleon this person presented sweet payback.

The code Napoleon was a revolution in jurisprudence ,one of many reasons why napoleon was called a great administrator.

In the end however ,i think most people will argue that ,unlike people like Hitler for ex. ,Napoleon had an noble and loveable character.He was quite a small person for for his great reputation , he had respect for skillfull enemy's ,could be pretty calm for a Corsican ,and looked quite unique with his hand under his vest.He was an intellectual ,and made many great quote's ,like this one:

"There are but two powers in the world, the sword and the mind. In the long run the sword is always beaten by the mind."

I compare Napoleon to a bit to Alexander the great ,and inspiring person yet with an endless urge to conquer.If it wasn't for his troops having been for many years away from home Alexander would have fought untill he reached the ned of his known world ,so would have done Napoleon.
In their mind ,they knew all to well they were writing history ,in fact ,their goal was to become of the most prominent historical figure's ,people like Napoleon and Alexander conciously fought for undying fame ,and they succeeded.

 

[Stapel]

I view him as a brilliant military leader.

He lost, didn't he?

Going to Russia was a blunder, unmatched in history.
A great tactical military leader, but a poor strategic military leader.

and not that bad as a leader.

We still have many laws here in NL, that were introduced during the French occupation from 1795 until 1813.

 

[Sims2789]

Exracts from BBC article:

Several exhibitions devoted to his memory have opened around Paris: at the Louvre, the Jacquemart museum and at Les Invalides, where he is buried.

Should he be remembered as a military genius and great French leader who laid the foundations of modern Europe?

Or was he a tyrant and mass murderer, who killed millions during his campaigns of conquest?...

He should be remembered as both, as he was both. It should also be noted that he was a hypocrite. While he supported a meritocracy with no hereditarily-gained positions, he himself was a ruler who would have passed his crown to his son when he died had he stayed in power.

 

[Emp.Napoleon]

Should he be remembered as a military genius and great French leader who laid the foundations of modern Europe?

Or was he a tyrant and mass murderer, who killed millions during his campaigns of conquest?

Both. Many world leaders have done the first while doing the second.

 

[Elrohir]

He was a great military leader, who also brought many positive changes to France. He was also a tyrant who suffered from megalomania.

I would not call him a mass murderer, even though I'm sure he was a war criminal for modern standards. He definately did not show much compassion towards his enemies(the executions in Spain come to mind).

Huh, British wounded were treated better by the French than their allies the Spaniards, which is pretty sad when you come to think of it.

Napoleon was a tyrant, who started several wars, and through them caused the deaths of millions. However, to his credit he was a just ruler, who governed France well, had the support of the people he ruled over, and he never intended to cause so many deaths, he merely intended to unite Europe under his rule. So while I would never call him a hero per se, he was most definently not on the level of Hitler or Stalin.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

People always seem to badmouth Napoleon, but I like him a lot better than all the Czars and monarchs that existed in Europe at the time.

Damn you Admiral Nelson!

 

[SuperBeaverInc.]

I think Napoleon was a great leader. He showed how great of a military tactician he was, up to the point where he went into Russia. Yes, his wars are responsible for the deaths of many people, but in all wars there are causalties.

 

[Evie]

How do we remember Caesar? How do we remember Alexander?

Did Napoléon really do anything that was much worse than either of those? I mean, we're not talking Mongolian rempage or concentration camps here, we're talkign a man who fought wars of conquests - as did the above two.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Going to Russia was a blunder, unmatched in history.

Well his poor decision to invade Russia was matched by the Swedes and the Germans.

A great tactical military leader, but a poor strategic military leader.

You almost got it right. I'm sure your error was because English is a second language for you. You meant to write:
"A great tactical military leader, and a brilliant strategic military leader." It is common for non native English speakers and residents of great britian to confuse "poor" and "brilliant" when discussing Napoleon.

Yesterday Austerlitz (12/1/1805); today long live the Emperor (12/2/1804)

 

[Steph]

Napoleon didn't want to unit the whole Europe through wars. His goal was to secure France. He would have loved to avoid the wars, take time to build all the reforms in France, make it a powerfull country, and then expand the ideas of the republic peacefully.
That matches the quote about the sword and the mind.

Bu he was a general before all, and when he feared an attack (don't forget that most of the wars were in fact started by the coalitions), he always tried to attack first to wage the war on ennemy territory, and not in France. However, he was to demanding in peace: he expanded France to much and to fast. He did this because he thought it was a good way to protect France, not only because he wanted to conquer : it was more a kind of buffer states.

You may think he was corrupted because he put his familly in control of other country. But it was done for a very simple reason : he simply thought his brothers would be more loyal than others. It wasn't to give them a prize!
And Napoleon himself doesn't really care about gold or palace. He used it as a tool to gain loyalty from some marshalls, and also because he needed to be seen as an equal by other rulers, in his goal to achieve a long terme peace with them. But just have a look at how he was dressed on the battlfield, and how were the marshall dressed. He was easy to spot amongst his guard, he was the one with the plain dress!

France owned him a lot : most of our laws, our administrations, our best schools come from him.

Foreigners remember him only as a bloody general. But he did even more in France than he did on the battlefield.

PrivateHudson will always say Wellington was a better general that Napoleon. Well we can discuss it to the end of time. But very few people in history have been good generals, and also good leader who really did much for his country.

 

[Jorge]

I think Napoleon was as guilty of the wars as the british, prussians, russians, etc ... They were all empires fighting for power.

 

[Stapel]

You almost got it right. I'm sure your error was because English is a second language for you. You meant to write:
"A great tactical military leader, and a brilliant strategic military leader." It is common for non native English speakers and residents of great britian to confuse "poor" and "brilliant" when discussing Napoleon.

I am not really sure I get your point.
You think he was a brilliant strategic military leader?