Why do peple compare Napoleon to Hitler?

[Traitorfish]

Went to war with most of Europe. Subdued most of it. Could not invade Britain.Disastrous invasion of Russia. Got beaten.

Link to video.

 

[Dachs]

Fair enough, but I was rather thinking more about the direct military activities of the Holy Alliance actually.

Yeah, I suppose. Italy in the twenties was pretty failtastic all around, though. And the thing with the Pope over Ravenna and the Marches...jeez...

 

[vogtmurr]

I think some of you are really being a bit too hard on Nappy. Although their careers bear a superficial resenblance they were two completely different people. Napoleon may have been slightly touched by megalomania towards the end, but it was nothing compared to the murderous insanity (or syphillis) that gripped Hitler. Napoleon did not start the wars of the French directorate but he continued them because his state was not safe and his neighbours could not accept what France stood for. He eventually turned his back on the revolutionary ideals that gave rise to his power, but he also curbed some of its more radical elements.

For the most part he was at war with regimes, not practicing total war on the people of other nations. Paradoxically, he might have been a liberator to some of these countries, but people irrationally tended to identify with their monarchs, even if those have done little right by them to claim their affections. Like in England for example. He might have been making up his own rules as he went along but there were really no higher rules to play by, were there ? By the standards of recent history in his time, any one of the great European powers would have been doing the same thing, if they could have. Yet he left a legacy that shows he believed in justice. It's pretty tough being a good guy and the military arbitrator of Europe at the same time.

Now Lightspectra you have mentioned Haiti a few times, which I have acknowledged elsewhere was a puzzling lack of judgement, if for no other reason than it just wasn't worth it. There were shameful acts and the betrayal of l'Ouverture, but it was also a brutal insurrection and any other European colonial power at the time would have felt compelled to "teach them a lesson". I really need to see a bit more evidence before we throw the word genocide around. Haiti survived and slavery was outlawed, but is that country any better off for throwing off the chains of colonialism earlier than the rest ?

 

[Dachs]

Napoleon did not start the wars of the French directorate but he continued them because his state was not safe and his neighbours could not accept what France stood for.

Aaaaand your argument lost any semblance of legitimacy riiiiight abouuuuut heeeeeere.

 

[vogtmurr]

Aaaaand your argument lost any semblance of legitimacy riiiiight abouuuuut heeeeeere.

Explain then, because I dont think a minor technicality here kills the entire intent of the argument. I would prefer to hear a response to the whole. Was France not beset by other European powers in the wake of the revolution ? Was Napoleon trying to defend French interests in the Wars of the Directorate in northern Italy, for example ? I am implying that there was a subtle change when his wars became more imperialistic, but that is a logical outcome when your enemies keep declaring war on you.

 

[Dachs]

Explain then, because I dont think a minor technicality here kills the entire intent of the argument. I would prefer to hear a response to the whole. Was France not beset by other European powers in the wake of the revolution ? Was Napoleon trying to defend French interests in the Wars of the Directorate in northern Italy, for example ? I am implying that there was a subtle change when his wars became more imperialistic, but that is a logical outcome when your enemies keep declaring war on you.

France started the wars in 1792, for one thing. That's, um, a pretty big deal.

Then you'd be hard pressed to figure out how conquering territories and organizing them into puppet states is "defending" anybody's interests. Unless, of course, you circumvent the whole thing by saying that it was in French interests to control northern Italy through satellite states. It may have been, but isn't the use of "defending" there just a teeny bit disingenuous?

I'm not sure where you'd draw the dividing line between "defensive wars" and "imperialistic wars". Before the French declared war, they were engaged in destroying the Landeshoheit of several Imperial enclaves and princes, and occupied Papal territory in Venaissin. In 1792, the French invaded the Rhineland; in 1793-4, Belgium. All of those territories were annexed to the Republic. In Italy, Napoleon overran Piedmont and Milan, and destroyed Venice in his first campaign alone; Milan was turned into a puppet republic, and Savoy and Nice were annexed. In 1801-2, Napoleon reshaped Italy again, and progressively turned northern Italy into a single centralized puppet state, culminating in 1804-5. Where in the course of these actions did the "Revolution" or "Napoleon" go wrong? All along, its foreign policy was a traditional imperialistic one, with puppet republics replacing puppet kings or princes - and even that was changed in 1804.

It's lunacy to claim that Napoleon's existence and throne were all along threatened from without, and that his legitimacy was never secure from old-style European monarchs who couldn't accept a parvenu addition to their club. Internally, Napoleon was the most secure of any of the contemporary monarchs of Europe; after Cadoudal, the only plot against him came in the winter of 1812, and even that wasn't a serious threat to his reign. Externally, Napoleon found little problem getting other states to recognize him. The Austrians immediately fell into line, for instance. Only the Russian government made bones about the 1804 proclamation - albeit chiefly in private - and Aleksandr too indicated his willingness to settle with France in 1807. And even during the War of the Sixth Coalition, the Allies did not decide to make Napoleon's abdication a war goal until Chaumont, in 1814. More than anything else, Napoleon's constant imperialistic poking and prodding, his violation of treaties and his outrageous demands, turned European sovereigns against him; the mere fact of his existence wasn't the issue.

Apologist nonsense like "(insert one: Republican France/Napoleon) could never have been accepted by the other European monarchs" is a product of Bonapartist memoirs and has had a disturbingly long shelf-life. One of the reasons the Napoleonic era is so distasteful to me is because so many of these myths survive, with a disturbing slant in favor of the French state and statesmen.

 

[LiquidCommander]

One of the reasons the Napoleonic era is so distasteful to me is because so many of these myths survive, with a disturbing slant in favor of the French state and statesmen.

Which is all right, I suppose since that's your interpretation, but you coming on here and trying to make yourself out as some sort of superior, intellectual being by claiming that everyone who is in the least bit sympathetic to Napoleon are obviously blinded with their "disturbing slant", or that they "lost all legitimacy" for thinking differently than you. No, that's called a different opinion then yours.

How about, instead of making a general fool of yourself you be less overly hostile and simply state your points, or otherwise stop replying here.

 

[Lord Baal]

Which is all right, I suppose since that's your interpretation, but you coming on here and trying to make yourself out as some sort of superior, intellectual being by claiming that everyone who is in the least bit sympathetic to Napoleon are obviously blinded with their "disturbing slant", or that they "lost all legitimacy" for thinking differently than you. No, that's called a different opinion then yours.

How about, instead of making a general fool of yourself you be less overly hostile and simply state your points, or otherwise stop replying here.

Considering how completely over-the-top you were, he had every right to call you on your bs. You'll note he doesn't do it to people like myself, Masada, and others who actually attempt to achieve some sort of objectivity. Personally, I quite like Napoleon - he's probably my favourite (non-American) Western leader if the 19th century, at least off the top of my head. Actually, scratch that, second-favourite - I've always had a man-crush on Bismarck. But, despite my admiration for Nappy, I know damn well that he wasn't half of what you're making him out to be.

 

[Masada]

Well, I dunno, you can call me a cynic but claims like Napoleon promoted a 'federal Europe' like 'a[n] early European Union' deserves to have cold water thrown on them. I like French bayonets at my back as much as the next guy but seriously..

 

[LightSpectra]

Will somebody please think of the Haitians?

 

[Lord Baal]

Will somebody please think of the Haitians?

Oh, won't someone please think of the children!

I think Haiti gets overlooked in discussions of napoleon due to the fact that he was a European monarch who dominated European politics. People forget that France had an overseas empire at this time, let alone specifics regarding Haiti.

 

[sophie]

Considering how completely over-the-top you were, he had every right to call you on your bs. You'll note he doesn't do it to people like myself, Masada, and others who actually attempt to achieve some sort of objectivity. Personally, I quite like Napoleon - he's probably my favourite (non-American) Western leader if the 19th century, at least off the top of my head. Actually, scratch that, second-favourite - I've always had a man-crush on Bismarck. But, despite my admiration for Nappy, I know damn well that he wasn't half of what you're making him out to be.

This. We aren't disregarding you because you like Napoleon. Rather, we're disregarding you because you like Napoleon at the expense of ignoring or throwing out every one of his faults, which are numerous.

 

[Dachs]

To be entirely fair, I was being a bit over the top in response, and he's right to call me on that rhetorical flourish crap.

And like I said earlier, I don't consider Napoleon to be totally unlikable, Hitlerite, or whatever. It wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for me to spend so much time studying late antiquity, with all of the contemptible figures you see there, if I did. But I do think that he can get a better press than he deserves.

 

[vogtmurr]

France started the wars in 1792, for one thing. That's, um, a pretty big deal..

That is technically the case, but using it to establish a moral justification is iffy at best. The major powers were disturbed by the more radical elements of the revolution, and Austria and Prussia had already issued threats before France attempted a feeble invasion of the Netherlands. Does that justify all the armies converging on France, including French royalists intent on restoring the monarchy ? Clearly some monarchs hoped to take advantage of France's weakness, but it only served to solidify support for the revolution. Napoleon himself was not responsible for the execution of the monarchs, or starting the war in 1792; but he tamed the more radical elements.

Then you'd be hard pressed to figure out how conquering territories and organizing them into puppet states is "defending" anybody's interests. Unless, of course, you circumvent the whole thing by saying that it was in French interests to control northern Italy through satellite states. It may have been, but isn't the use of "defending" there just a teeny bit disingenuous?

I'm not sure where you'd draw the dividing line between "defensive wars" and "imperialistic wars". Before the French declared war, they were engaged in destroying the Landeshoheit of several Imperial enclaves and princes, and occupied Papal territory in Venaissin. In 1792, the French invaded the Rhineland; in 1793-4, Belgium. All of those territories were annexed to the Republic. In Italy, Napoleon overran Piedmont and Milan, and destroyed Venice in his first campaign alone; Milan was turned into a puppet republic, and Savoy and Nice were annexed. In 1801-2, Napoleon reshaped Italy again, and progressively turned northern Italy into a single centralized puppet state, culminating in 1804-5. Where in the course of these actions did the "Revolution" or "Napoleon" go wrong? All along, its foreign policy was a traditional imperialistic one, with puppet republics replacing puppet kings or princes - and even that was changed in 1804...

And these same states were previously puppets of the Hapsburgs. Naturally he would attempt to replace them with governments not hostile to France or the revolution. Even if he failed in that, ironically he was planting the seeds of Italian unification. It is a fine line, but Napoleon could not just sit back and wait for the coalition to invade France. Even if his policy bears trademarks of a traditional imperialistic stance, the response of his enemies was certainly so. Napoleon's actions before 1797 were no more imperialistic than the US invasion of Mexico 50 years later.

It's lunacy to claim that Napoleon's existence and throne were all along threatened from without, and that his legitimacy was never secure from old-style European monarchs who couldn't accept a parvenu addition to their club. Internally, Napoleon was the most secure of any of the contemporary monarchs ...

Funny because that is the impression I am left with. Napoleon did not start the war of the second coalition, or the third, or the fourth.... True it was no longer about defending the revolution, it was about fear and resentment of France's position of power in Europe, and what it represented to the old order. Internal acceptance is irrelevant to the discussion, by now the people of France loved him. As you pointed out it wasn't until 1812 that the first grumblings began at home, which kind of deflates the argument that he was somehow this ogre tyrant he has also been portrayed to be.

Externally, Napoleon found little problem getting other states to recognize him. The Austrians immediately fell into line, for instance. Only the Russian government made bones about the 1804 proclamation - albeit chiefly in private - and Aleksandr too indicated his willingness to settle with France in 1807. And even during the War of the Sixth Coalition, the Allies did not decide to make Napoleon's abdication a war goal until Chaumont, in 1814. More than anything else, Napoleon's constant imperialistic poking and prodding, his violation of treaties and his outrageous demands, turned European sovereigns against him; the mere fact of his existence wasn't the issue....

What ? The other states constantly sought to undermine France, and only fell into line when they were being 'prodded' by a bayonet or offered some sweet acquisitions of their own. Britain, safe from invasion never really accepted any compromise. Eventually Napoleon threw away any pretense of being an enlightened despot merely defending France. These wars were becoming so habitually forced on him he had nothing to lose. Even if they never stated it till 1814, do you think they would have been satisfied with anything less than Napoleon's abdication before then ?

Apologist nonsense like "(insert one: Republican France/Napoleon) could never have been accepted by the other European monarchs" is a product of Bonapartist memoirs and has had a disturbingly long shelf-life. One of the reasons the Napoleonic era is so distasteful to me is because so many of these myths survive, with a disturbing slant in favor of the French state and statesmen.

I will not try to portray Napoleon as a great emancipator of civilization, but at least acknowledge how reactionary the other European monarchs in fact were. Restoring a Bourbon puppet to the throne, and trying to resume their imperialist rule over territories that had a taste of nationalisim. There were some long overdue changes taking place to the old social order, which they resisted most strenuously, right up into the great upheavals of the 1840s.

Considering how completely over-the-top you were, he had every right to call you on your bs. You'll note he doesn't do it to people like myself, Masada, and others who actually attempt to achieve some sort of objectivity..

Let's not get too clique-y. I may not agree but I am objective, and feel there is an assumption I'm buying in to some false history hook line and sinker.
(ps: congratulations from one father to another)

Will somebody please think of the Haitians?

I did - tell me something I don't know. It wasn't pretty, but did Napoleon really have anything to do with the actual prosecution of this ? By leveling the charge of genocide I will have to point out that the initial Haitian revolt almost annihilated the French colonial population in a most gruesome manner. I suppose if it is done by the oppressed we must accept that it isn't genocide, but lets not be surprised if there is a response from the mother country, and they had the support of many thousands of free blacks who lived on the island..

Back to my original point...

Napoleon was completely different from Hitler in his character, intent, and actions. I don't think any of his antagonists really stand on some moral higher ground.

 

[LiquidCommander]

Considering how completely over-the-top you were, he had every right to call you on your bs. You'll note he doesn't do it to people like myself, Masada, and others who actually attempt to achieve some sort of objectivity. Personally, I quite like Napoleon - he's probably my favourite (non-American) Western leader if the 19th century, at least off the top of my head. Actually, scratch that, second-favourite - I've always had a man-crush on Bismarck. But, despite my admiration for Nappy, I know damn well that he wasn't half of what you're making him out to be.

This. We aren't disregarding you because you like Napoleon. Rather, we're disregarding you because you like Napoleon at the expense of ignoring or throwing out every one of his faults, which are numerous.

Did you read any of my posts beyond the OP? If you did, you'd know that I fully realize and do not doubt Napoleon was about as flawed as he was great, and some of his actions I do not approve of, and he should have known better. I won't repeat myself, look for when I addressed his mistakes and flaws (twice).

Just because I rebut the things that are spoken does not mean I simply ignore them. As I said, I don't like seeing things one-sided, and when I talk about Napoleon with people face-to-face (or if I don't make a thread about it) I'll leave it up to them to decide what kind of man he was. As I've said many times, it's a matter of different interpretations and opinions of a man that existed two centuries ago.

 

[Dachs]

That is technically the case, but using it to establish a moral justification is iffy at best. The major powers were disturbed by the more radical elements of the revolution, and Austria and Prussia had already issued threats before France attempted a feeble invasion of the Netherlands. Does that justify all the armies converging on France, including French royalists intent on restoring the monarchy ? Clearly some monarchs hoped to take advantage of France's weakness, but it only served to solidify support for the revolution.

Well, for one thing, the royalists weren't under anybody's control but their own, and they acted as a destabilizing element in the crisis of 1792. At one point, Leopold II forcibly had émigrés removed from Habsburg territories bordering France, but this was apparently insufficient concession for the Republic.

For another thing, the European powers were not particularly concerned about the state of the French government in and of itself. In the Hungarian crisis of two years before the war, Friedrich Wilhelm had attempted to ally Prussia to the French feuillants in order to crush the Habsburgs. Leopold II was explicitly concerned with the safety of his relative, not about the particular constitution France was governed by; even the one time he drew up a plan to restore order in France under their auspices (in 1791) it was not to be under the system of government of the ancien régime. His formation of alliances in late 1791 were intended to group Prussia and try to curb the émigrés, not as an alliance of war against France.

This plan was rapidly doomed by elements within the French government. The war minister, the duc de Narbonne, considered that the best way to create a powerful army was to forge it in the fires of a new war with the hereditary enemy Austria, so he and the Girondins forced Louis XVI into making fresh demands on the allies, specifically the elector of Trier. Kaunitz, in Vienna, had troops disperse the émigrés in Trier, satisfying the concrete French demands, but refused further compromises. Narbonne was ousted, but then the foreign minister, Jean Marie de Lessart, was also ejected in favor of the Girondin Dumouriez.

By this time most of the government in France wanted war, regardless of Habsburg willingness to avoid it, for different reasons. Dumouriez saw a path to personal political or military power. The Girondins in general saw a way to discredit the Court and overthrow the monarchy by revealing its so-called "conspiracy" with the Habsburgs as soon as they were at war. Louis believed that the only way he could regain a semblance of popularity was by leading the nation in a glorious military campaign. On the other side, the Habsburgs were almost admirably restrained. Kaunitz openly criticized Edmund Burke's antirevolutionary tractates from Britain as needlessly inflammatory. From letters, we can see that most of the Habsburg government that considered the Revolutionaries to be a plague worthy only of destruction considered foreign intervention to be essentially the only thing that could make a bad situation worse.

The problem arose when the Habsburgs decided to stop being shrinking violets, acceding to every French demand, and tried to combine conciliation with firmness, drawing up armies of observation on the frontier and attempting to form their own program to balance things out - another problem of running the coalition. While the alliance grouped Spain, Prussia, the Pope, and several German and Italian states and restricted their freedom of action to do stupid crap, it was also difficult to keep those states in the alliance without throwing them a bone. So the Pope and the Belgians (whose own revolution had only recently been crushed) were conciliated with demands to return Venaissin and Avignon to Papal authority, which hardened the Assembly's stance towards war.

I honestly don't see how that whole series of events can be laid at the feet of a Europe-wide antirevolutionary conspiracy. Maybe you can.

Napoleon himself was not responsible for the execution of the monarchs, or starting the war in 1792; but he tamed the more radical elements.

In the most general sense, I agree. And that's why he was accepted by European monarchs. In the years since the revolution started, every throne in Europe had been under some threat or other. Franz II nearly lost his in 1797, 1805, and 1809; Aleksandr came to power via a violent coup; Friedrich Wilhelm nearly lost his own throne in 1807. It wasn't because they had any particular problem with Revolutionary "ideals" or Napoleon's reform programs; even if they did, that was hardly the driving force pushing them into war with Napoleon. By the first decade of the nineteenth century, these men saw Napoleon as representing a force for order, and that's one of the reasons they were willing to put up with him for so long.

And these same states were previously puppets of the Hapsburgs.

[citation needed] Piedmont and Venice? Really?

Naturally he would attempt to replace them with governments not hostile to France or the revolution. Even if he failed in that, ironically he was planting the seeds of Italian unification. It is a fine line, but Napoleon could not just sit back and wait for the coalition to invade France.

The conquest of northern Italy, which had hitherto been an indecisive and ignored theater, and its subjection to the French Republic, is not the sole alternative to "sitting back and waiting for the coalition to invade France". In external terms, France was not in serious threat from Austria in 1796-7.

Even if his policy bears trademarks of a traditional imperialistic stance, the response of his enemies was certainly so.

I agree; the transformation of war aims after 1792, and after Leopold II died, ended up being traditionally imperialistic, albeit in exciting new ways (like Prussia participating in the war to solidify its control of northern Germany and keep Austria occupied, not out of any particular antipathy to France). That doesn't excuse anything Napoleon did. We've been over this relativist nonsense before.

Napoleon's actions before 1797 were no more imperialistic than the US invasion of Mexico 50 years later.

How is that remotely relevant?

Funny because that is the impression I am left with. Napoleon did not start the war of the second coalition,

No, he didn't. The French state did, when it sent its armies into eastern Switzerland. At least, that is the proximate cause. The reason anybody saw a coalition forming at all was partly because of Napoleon's actions. Austria was embittered by Bonaparte's manipulations in northern Italy from Leoben to Campo Formio; Pavel of Russia was pissed off about Napoleon's seizure of Malta and his move to Egypt.

or the third,

Proximate cause: Addington's failure of a ministry declares war on France in 1803. Reasons for the rise of British antipathy to Napoleon: the Swiss Act of Mediation; the Sébastiani report on Egypt, which deliberately fostered the impression that Napoleon was going to make another try; French meddling in the Netherlands, which caused the Batavian state to rewrite its constitution in clear violation of Lunéville. Not to mention, of course, French actions in Italy and the territorial revolution in Germany, and the triangle game between France, the United States, and the UK. Napoleon was merely using the post-Amiens period to increase his armaments and prepare for a fresh war against the UK, Addington finally realized it belatedly, and declared war. I don't think the British had the full force of legality or morality on their side here at all, but Napoleon was about as far from being the injured party here as one can be.

or the fourth....

No heroes in this war. I think it has been put most succinctly as, "Napoleon forced Prussia into war, and Prussia brought the war on her own head." The Prussians spent the 1790s playing the jackal and seizing much of northern Germany and Poland; by the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1806 they became Napoleon's lackeys in exchange for Hanover. Napoleon promptly decided that he didn't like Prussia's control of Hanover, and fomented several disputes along the border. Murat occupied Prussian territory, claiming it as his own by virtue of his rulership in Berg; Napoleon then expanded his demands to the county of Mark. Bonaparte formed the Rheinbund, a clear security threat to Prussia that placed tens of thousands of troops on Prussia's southern frontier. Talleyrand had suggested in 1805 that Prussia form a Norddeutscher Bund; when Prussia attempted to do so in 1806, Napoleon prevented it from happening by forcing Saxony and the other North German states into line. He then barred Prussia from even so much as entering Saxony, saying that any troop movement there would constitute a casus belli. One has to marvel at how Bonaparte forced Friedrich Wilhelm III of all people into fighting against him. Truly astonishing.

As you pointed out it wasn't until 1812 that the first grumblings began at home, which kind of deflates the argument that he was somehow this ogre tyrant he has also been portrayed to be.

"And it wasn't until 1944 that any Germans made a semiserious attempt to unseat Hitler, which kind of deflates the argument that he was somehow this ogre tyrant he has also been portrayed to be."

What ? The other states constantly sought to undermine France, and only fell into line when they were being 'prodded' by a bayonet or offered some sweet acquisitions of their own. Britain, safe from invasion never really accepted any compromise.

Why should they have? Napoleon never offered them anything. The British had conquered France's overseas colonies and those of its allies; Napoleon never wavered from demanding all of France's prewar possessions back, plus extra stuff on the Continent. How is that a "compromise"? How was Napoleon offering any incentive whatsoever for the United Kingdom to make peace with him?

Even if they never stated it till 1814, do you think they would have been satisfied with anything less than Napoleon's abdication before then ?

They were in 1807. And Metternich made a point of explicitly trying to protect Napoleon and his throne, even at the height of fighting in 1813, during Austria's famous armed mediation attempt. Aleksandr was noticeably ambivalent about the whole thing, and went from one extreme to the other depending on who he'd last spoken to. Friedrich Wilhelm III barely wanted to fight at all. The British oscillated as well, depending, but we'll never know what they would've accepted, because Napoleon never proposed reasonable terms even to the ministries - thinking Fox here - that were willing to bend over backward to appease him.

Restoring a Bourbon puppet to the throne,

The French did that themselves, dude. Napoleon was at Fontainebleau, openly stated that he wasn't going to fight to keep Paris, and Talleyrand and Fouché finally discovered their spines and got together with the mock legislature to accept Louis XVIII.

and trying to resume their imperialist rule over territories that had a taste of nationalisim.

Nationalism is one of the greatest threats to peace in the history of the world. You may not approve of what the Vienna powers did, but they made plenty of concessions to nationalistic elements - perhaps too many, considering how relatively uncommon they were in 1814-5 - while creating a European system that actually kept the peace for thirty years. What were the alternatives, anyway?

 

[vogtmurr]

Thanks for the effort in composing that response.

I was a bit surprised to learn that Austria was initially, tentatively tolerant towards the revolution. And I should clarify I wasn't really defending nationalism per se, as much as I was legitimate independence movements. In challenging some of these charges against Napoleon, I took a pretty harsh poke at the other powers, intending to illustrate that on moral grounds, there was little to really contrast them with France under Napoleon. I hope I haven't come across as a loose cannon, which Napoleon certainly was. haha. I think we all agree his ambition led to the continuation of hostilities and his demise. But for all the times he faced the same line-up of enemies, I am struck by the restraint he appeared to generally have in dealing with them, something Hitler would not have had. For a while there, he really rocked their world. I say he gets maybe 26 years in purgatory with time off on weekends for good behaviour.

 

[Kruelgor]

Alexander is the man who started it all. Ever since Alexander, many men have tried to follow in his footsteps.

Ceasar wept at the statue of Alexander when he observed his own lack of accomplishments compared to the Macedonian. Napoleon crowned himself Emperor in immitation of the Caesars, and Hitler designed the city architecture for a new Roman-Like Empire.

There are many similarities between Hitler in Napoleon most notably in their battle campaigns. The war against "The Allies", war for Egypt, Russia, etc....Failed invasion of England which never took place. Both shocked the world with countless victories initially and both ended in utter defeat primarily due to their overconfidence in attacking Russia.

 

[Traitorfish]

Alexander is the man who started it all. Ever since Alexander, many men have tried to follow in his footsteps.

Didn't Alexander claim to have been inspired, to some degree, by Cyrus the Great? And wasn't Cyrus just the latest in a series of conquering warrior-kings going to back Sargon, who was just the first brute to extend his rule outside of his immediate locale? And didn't conquerors emerge in entirely unrelated cultures, including those that emerged in complete isolation on the other side of the Atlantic? I really don't think this can be pinned on any one individual, just because he happened to be the first white guy to join the club.

...Hitler designed the city architecture for a new Roman-Like Empire.

That was really just a manifestation of the European obsession with Classical aesthetics, rather than anything particularly unique about the Nazis. The style was frequently bent to the service of both republicanism and imperialism- remember, the explicitly democratic city of Washington D.C. used the same principles and aesthetics, albeit in a less militaristic mould.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Oh, an remember the Stalin Empire Style.