holy king
Deity
what do you think of napoleon?
napoleon
- Thread starter holy king
- Start date
napoleon526
Emperor
Too general a question. Be more specific.
pi8ch
Union's Guard
I say "dangerous dictator"
He may have dreamed of a United Europe, but the same was dremed by Hitler too.
A United Europe can't be forced by the controll of a single state, that's the problem. And Napolen forced!
Even if we assume naoplen didn't meant it bad to anyone: It just can't be right to let people die becuase of this Idea!
So he defenitely WAS a dictator, not to forget that many resistance in France was killed too.
He may have dreamed of a United Europe, but the same was dremed by Hitler too.
A United Europe can't be forced by the controll of a single state, that's the problem. And Napolen forced!
Even if we assume naoplen didn't meant it bad to anyone: It just can't be right to let people die becuase of this Idea!
So he defenitely WAS a dictator, not to forget that many resistance in France was killed too.
Akka
Moody old mage.
I would say he was an "enlightened overambitious dictator".
He was a dictator.
He destroyed the last feodalistic structures in Europe.
He poured some of the progressive ideas of the Revolution.
He betrayed some other of the progressive ideas of the Revolution.
He promoted the idea of merit over birth.
He was both progressive and repressive, a builder and a destroyer, a liberator and an oppressor.
I think he was too complex and dual to be restrained to one strict category. He's a mix of paradoxes and contradictory ideas and act. I think he's just the same kind of people as Ceasar.
He was a dictator.
He destroyed the last feodalistic structures in Europe.
He poured some of the progressive ideas of the Revolution.
He betrayed some other of the progressive ideas of the Revolution.
He promoted the idea of merit over birth.
He was both progressive and repressive, a builder and a destroyer, a liberator and an oppressor.
I think he was too complex and dual to be restrained to one strict category. He's a mix of paradoxes and contradictory ideas and act. I think he's just the same kind of people as Ceasar.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
He was a great hero of the French people...and therefore the devil incarnate. Burn him! Burn him like we burned Joan of Arc! And like how we burn our toast if it is left in the toaster too long before the numbers lie! They lie I tell ya! What the hell does number three mean? Is it three minutes? Or is it a unit of time invented purely for the toaster? What the hell is going on? Is it part of some sort of worldwide conspiracy to burn our toast? For what purpose? Are aliens trying to influence us through the medium of burnt toast?...I seem to have gone slightly off-topic.
test_specimen
hope lost
- Joined
- May 20, 2002
- Messages
- 2,200
Since most leaders were some sort of absolute (at that time), being a dictator is not too bad in comparison.
He did a lot of good (code napoleon, code civil) did, a lot of bad (starting wars).
But still no need to compare him to Hitler (whose idea was not a united Europe, but to eliminate everyone else and populate with aryans).
edit: typo
He did a lot of good (code napoleon, code civil) did, a lot of bad (starting wars).
But still no need to compare him to Hitler (whose idea was not a united Europe, but to eliminate everyone else and populate with aryans).
edit: typo
D' Artagnan
Mousquetaire du Roi
He did more good than bad.
Calling him a "dictator" is ridiculous since France had always been ruled by dictators.
And contrary to everyone's beliefs, he didn't start wars ( at least in Europe). All Europe + Russia decided to go at war against him cuz his ideas could spread in all over Europe and european monarchs didn't want that.
Calling him a "dictator" is ridiculous since France had always been ruled by dictators.
And contrary to everyone's beliefs, he didn't start wars ( at least in Europe). All Europe + Russia decided to go at war against him cuz his ideas could spread in all over Europe and european monarchs didn't want that.
pi8ch
Union's Guard
That's simply not true D' Artagnan.
He just sayed: "Let us make it this way"
The others saied "No!"
and then they crashed...
BTW: He was responsible for some thigs: E.g. in Tyrol was a psrt of Austria that had some special status. (Framers were alowed to wear arms and so on) After the rance occupation he gave Tyrol to Bavaria.
THen the Tyrolians didn't had this freedom anymore... They fought against the Bavarians...
The Napoleonics and their "allies" the bavarians killed many innocent people then...
He was a dictator, and he wanted to conuer Eruope. It's not important if his idea was good or not. It's soimply wrong to force people... Its's simply wrong to make war.
He just sayed: "Let us make it this way"
The others saied "No!"
and then they crashed...
BTW: He was responsible for some thigs: E.g. in Tyrol was a psrt of Austria that had some special status. (Framers were alowed to wear arms and so on) After the rance occupation he gave Tyrol to Bavaria.
THen the Tyrolians didn't had this freedom anymore... They fought against the Bavarians...
The Napoleonics and their "allies" the bavarians killed many innocent people then...
He was a dictator, and he wanted to conuer Eruope. It's not important if his idea was good or not. It's soimply wrong to force people... Its's simply wrong to make war.
onejayhawk
Afflicted with reason
In the context of todays diplomatic situation, he was a dangerous dictator. He was highly agressive militarily and his had a general disdain for the opinion of the nations surrounding him. I put Hero of the French people.
Everything comes with costs and benefits. The Franch were a greater nation after his exile than before his rise. His contributions to the empowerment of the middle and lower classes was landmark. After the "Reign of Terror" his methods of governance were acceptably restrained. In shortt France is better because he lived and thrived.
J
Everything comes with costs and benefits. The Franch were a greater nation after his exile than before his rise. His contributions to the empowerment of the middle and lower classes was landmark. After the "Reign of Terror" his methods of governance were acceptably restrained. In shortt France is better because he lived and thrived.
J
Darth Civ
Chieftain
Well i played a game on bbc history and I found out how cool it is to be napolean.I found that the french came to him as soon as he returned to france.worship napolean:worshp:
Remorseless
Relentless
Akka is right -- Bonaparte was far too complex to be catagorized in an "either/or" situation.
He was, however, the anthesis of Hitler. He certainly curbed the worst excesses of the Republic, yet was only a fair civil administrator and was too often in the field expanding or defending the Empire. Yet he was not racially motivated and did indeed embrace the Republican ideals of equality, fraternity and liberty.
As a general, there are few that are his peer in history, and none really exceed him. He totally changed the face of warfare, bringing an energy and violence to the battlefield that persists to this day. The lessons of his campaigns are still taught in military academies around the world. Perhaps Alexander the Great and Jenghiz Khan are his equal as generals, yet neither overshadow the diminutive Corsican.
But to say France was greater after his reign than before is to totally misread history. In a sense, Napoleon sowed the seeds of future French disasters by forcing the Germans to finally unite. In the 18th Century, France was the pre-eminent military power in Europe -- Frederick and Prussia may have had the best military but it was a small part of Europe. The French under Louis the XIV (I believe, always get the numbers mixed up) introduced modern military practices to the world, capitalizing on lessons from the Thirty Years and 100 Years War.
Although MrPresident is right -- aliens are trying to control us through the medium of brunt toast, as well as weak tea.
He was, however, the anthesis of Hitler. He certainly curbed the worst excesses of the Republic, yet was only a fair civil administrator and was too often in the field expanding or defending the Empire. Yet he was not racially motivated and did indeed embrace the Republican ideals of equality, fraternity and liberty.
As a general, there are few that are his peer in history, and none really exceed him. He totally changed the face of warfare, bringing an energy and violence to the battlefield that persists to this day. The lessons of his campaigns are still taught in military academies around the world. Perhaps Alexander the Great and Jenghiz Khan are his equal as generals, yet neither overshadow the diminutive Corsican.
But to say France was greater after his reign than before is to totally misread history. In a sense, Napoleon sowed the seeds of future French disasters by forcing the Germans to finally unite. In the 18th Century, France was the pre-eminent military power in Europe -- Frederick and Prussia may have had the best military but it was a small part of Europe. The French under Louis the XIV (I believe, always get the numbers mixed up) introduced modern military practices to the world, capitalizing on lessons from the Thirty Years and 100 Years War.
Although MrPresident is right -- aliens are trying to control us through the medium of brunt toast, as well as weak tea.
Stapel
FIAT 850 coupé
As Charles de Gaulle once said: Before Napoleon came to power, France was stronger than after. So he is not a great hero for France.
Irish Caesar
Yellow Jacket
None of the above.
He was a good general, until making a few fatal mistakes.
He was a good ruler, until his ego got the best of him.
He was popular, until his final loss.
He helped France, but only to give it stability for the short-term.
He changed Europe, but it is difficult to say for the better or worse.
All in all, he was just like most other military rulers throughout history.
He was a good general, until making a few fatal mistakes.
He was a good ruler, until his ego got the best of him.
He was popular, until his final loss.
He helped France, but only to give it stability for the short-term.
He changed Europe, but it is difficult to say for the better or worse.
All in all, he was just like most other military rulers throughout history.
General Brown
Go Boston Sports!
I think of Napoleon as a brilliant popular dictator
Brilliant-was one of the best generlas of all time.
Popular- had the support of a majority of the population.
Dictator- was in complete control of France and it's empire.
Brilliant-was one of the best generlas of all time.
Popular- had the support of a majority of the population.
Dictator- was in complete control of France and it's empire.
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
Dictator and dangerous one. People hailed him first in many places, but after all he was just a blood thirsty power mongering dictator with badly behaving troops. Will not speak of his size, I know many sane little men without complexes - don't actually know if Napoleon had one.
Porphyrogenitos
Γένοιος Όιος έσαι μαθών
Napoleon's size/height has been one of those things long talked about and often misunderstood. He was actually of average height and build (though he got fatter towards the end) based on the average heights of the time. No one ever called him small or short (even his critics, nor his wife who had many complaints about him and was as salacious as certain Roman wives of old) because he wasn't for them. The misunderstandings emerged because of the medical files kept by Napoleon's English doctors (whom he hated and mistrusted deeply) who found everything about him small (in keeping with English derision regarding Napoleon). These 'myths' have been dispelled in numerous books. Take a look at Frank McLynn's book (Napoleon) for example.
Size has been a popular debunking argument since Freud and Jung took a stab at it and connected it with the psyche. I don't dispute this claim per se but in Napoleon's case it is not accurate.
Size has been a popular debunking argument since Freud and Jung took a stab at it and connected it with the psyche. I don't dispute this claim per se but in Napoleon's case it is not accurate.
Similar threads
