And directly or indirectly an influence over the legal systems of a few dozen other countries - those that directly adopted part or all of the Code Napoéon, those who derived their code from part or all of the Code Napoléon, those who were inspired to write their own code because their country was being influenced by the Code Napoléon, and those who in turn imported part or all of the code of those countries.
But Firaxis is terribad at creating lawgiver leader, even freaking Hammurabi got precisely no ability related to legal codes XD
- And the state of Louisiana, which I've heard a lawyer describe as like working in a foreign country compared to anyplace else in the USA.
- And I know the chance of Firaxis including Legal or Law in anything is remote. But then, if I confined myself to only what I thought Firaxis might do, I'd be better off keeping silent . . .
. . . Napoleon failed pretty completely and left France smaller, poorer, and basically ended the dominance of the French empire.
Personally, I think Napoleon makes sense as a great general, where his main genius was. But neither he nor Stalin should lead their respective countries.
Not entirely. The French military was still the dominant model for a Modern Military for 50+ years after Waterloo, until von Moltke cut it down to size in 1870. Since the only French Empire was that of Napoleon (the
Ancient Regime was a Monarchy, not an Empire), his defeat certainly ended it (until his nephew resurrected it), but French was still the language of diplomacy for the rest of the 19th century and Paris the center of art and culture for both sides of the Atlantic for at least a couple of generations after Buonaparte was gone. And as I noted, his civic achievements have lasted to the present day.
Just in passing, note that there is a Napoleonic Society of historians in the USA dedicated to studying the man's effects in all aspects of government, culture, civic and military affairs (Full disclosure: one of my old friends used to be the President of the Society). As far as I know, there is no such organization (outside of Russia) dedicated to studying Stalin.
Because Napoleon's military skills had such an outsized effect and influence, it's easy to think of him only as a self-promoted General masquerading as an Emperor, and I am NOT arguing that he was the best civil leader that France ever had, but there was far more to him than just his success in battle, so that he is a legitimate Leader for France, in addition to being a prime candidate for a Great General.
If I were being thoroughly contrary, I could argue that if Napoleon is 'only' a Great General, then Alexander of Macedon is far more so, because he had virtually no effect on Macedonian or Greek culture, civics or anything non-military except indirectly: he scattered elements of them all over the Middle East by his military conquests.
- But, let's be honest: Great Leaders are all too often in popular history Great Generals: Alexander, Julius Caesar, Trajan, Chinghis, Saladin, Napoleon - a complete list would include a large number of familiar names from History Channel and Civ games. The Civ franchise is firmly wedded to the Great Person theory of historiography with all the named characters and Leaders in the game, and that means various Great, Not-So-Great, and Self-Proclaimed Great Generals will keep parading through the games we play.