Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

He spread the revolution throughout the continent, but was responsible for millions of deaths through war and wastage.
He is generally seen as a hero, especially in France, but does this tyrant who waged war and conflict accross the continent and placed all his family and their cronies on the thrones of Europe deserve to be seen as such, or should he be better seen as a 19th century Hitler, only scarcely better because he had no deliberate policy of genocide?

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

He should be viewed as good. Ok so he fought a lot of wars and was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. I don't blame him for it and I view him as a great leader. If everyone that was responsible for deaths was evil, then many great men would be considered evil.

[thundertaker]

IronBrigadeMike (IBM) wrote: He should be viewed as good. Ok so he fought a lot of wars and was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of millions. I don't blame him for it and I view him as a great leader. If everyone that was responsible for deaths was evil, then many great men would be considered evil.

They were unneccesary deaths though....

[Mahanon]

good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear

[Rizla]

Was he selling anything I would want?

[Fido]

He was a world class dummmazzz. Like Hitler in not knowing when to quit, and making himself tyrant over his country as the first step to world conquest, and contemptuous of the French. Selling out his people to the church for his own specious political gain, faking a plebiscite, Egypt, Spain, punishing the last of the Jacobins for the attempt on his life they had no hand in. Crowning himself emperor, and bringing back royalty and the trappings of nobility. Russia, and not knowing the object of war. Was that his statement about the small step between the sublime and ridiculous? And what a family. And killing that book seller; if not the ultimate crime, then close.

[IronBrigadeMike (IBM)]

Mahanon wrote: good tactican bad strategist ;) - could take whole europe if he wouldnt go for the big bear

No, he made one strategic mistake. Still a great strategist. You don't achieve what he did w/o having some skill in that.

[Eton]

So Napoleon fought several wars against all the powers of Europe, but just think, who was he fighting? That's right, the worse that ancien regime Europe had to offer - the digusting Bourbons of France, Spain and Naples; the autocratic 'God on Earth' Czar of Russia; incesturous and feeble minded Habsburgs; militarist Hohenzollern Prussians; and yes even Britain the country that paid for and organised coalition after coalition to bring him down because of a nebulous concept like the 'balance of power'.

Given the choice between Napoleon and the other lot I think we would all be lucky to be ruled by Napoleon. Personally I think Britain was wrong to side with the most reactionary elements in Europe at the time. Napoleon was at least an enlightened despot.

[Aibolit]

Bad... :)

Mahanon +1

[strawdog]

And one more thing about Napoleon. Which I consider to be his greatest achievement. He brought the ideas of the French Revolution to the rest of the continental Europe. The dawn of the national state. Plus he enhanced the secularization of the society. Plus public schools and hospitals.

[Bobicito]

I think Napoleon could have conquered Russia eeasily if he had a giant wooden horse to go in real sneaky.

[Fido]

strawdog wrote: And one more thing about Napoleon. Which I consider to be his greatest achievement. He brought the ideas of the French Revolution to the rest of the continental Europe. The dawn of the national state. Plus he enhanced the secularization of the society. Plus public schools and hospitals.

Look, to say that he brought the ideas of the French Revolution anywhere means you conceive of those ideas quite narrowly. In fact, he turned, with his own crowning, and family of satellites back to the monarchical model of society. The equality of men was made a farce, and the rights of working people was limited. On top of all this, his wars were often of choice and not necessity. He threw away every chance for peace he may have had, and was beat the instant he met an enemy who used a limitless geography and unforgiving climate as weapons. He did not know what hit him.

[Jim Colyer]

Half good, half bad.

[antonio62]

Bad yes. Any worse than other leaders of the time probably not.

[Simon De Montfort]

Bad because of his blatanly agressive imperialistic foriegn policies.

But on the domestic side I think he was an improvement over the French Republic, and most other governments of Europe.

[bob.appleyard]

When he was conquering Europe he was considered a liberator of the oppressed (e.g. Jews in their ghettos).

When he got a bit older he started getting tough, though. He set up a security state far in advance of anything yet attempted at that time.

While he wasn't as nutty as the Jacobins ("we ARE the revolution" and all that twaddle) he was a naughty imperialist that ignored the Westphalian order which had ruled 18th C Europe, so not many people outside France liked him very much.

[Quicksurf]

Bad.

[ozymandias]

Quote: because of a nebulous concept like the 'balance of power'.

hmmm is this the balance of power which is still used to decide foreign policy today, and is the central surmise behind almost every political theory book except the post modernists? you make it seem like a bad thing that britain was trying to preserve the balance of power. if you dismiss it, you clearly didn't understand it.

whilst napoleon did instigate good reforms in france, that would arguably have happended post revolution without him. he caused the deaths of thousands of europeans, and at his defeat caused the cessation of france as a viable european power. and what about the genocide of the spanish and portugese at the hands of his inept brother?

[Nicolas]

I've nothing to add really everything has been said about him good and bad :wink:

Except, militarily like Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar he will be known forever as being at one single point in history the greatest general and military genius the world had. Remember that the French under Napoléon are still the only army EVER to have taken all of continental Europe, from Lisbon to Moscow.
In fact, he achieved what all megalomaniac men like him wanted, IMMORTALITY, every man who has carved his way into the history of military genius is trying to make a mark on history so big that his immortality is sealed as long as the story it retold. Throughout history, there have been plenty of people gifted of native intelligence, or courage, or great energy, but few have attained Bonaparte's fame. He had all of those aforementioned qualities in spades, to be sure, but he had one other, which trumped the lot: audacity :) He was supremely confident of success in any situation.
That's what makes Napoléon stand out with the greatests.

It's hard to judge Napoléon on the grounds that he was "worse" than his opponents, the "reactionary" monarchies of Europe :roll: The Napoleonic Code is still used in France and many other states in Europe...and other parts of the world today. Its emphasis on private property spurred economic growth throughout Europe. He did spread the ideals of the French Revolution, the ideas of liberalism and freedom, even at the cost of much war to Europe and other parts of the world.
Furthermore he was a social liberal who disregarded foolish notions of class and promoted his suboordinates based on talent - he established a meritocracy.

Of course, Napoléon was a very complex man, a despot and I'm certainly biased because I'm French :lol: but his life has always fascinated me: an unknown little Corsican who became a great general of the French Revolution, his battles in Egypt ("Soldiers! From the top of these Pyramids, 40 centuries are looking at you!" 8:) ) his "coup d’État" of 1799, which saw him become First Consul and then Emperor of the French in 1804, his abdication, exile to Elba, escape to France, his last campaign, Wellingtons stand, and Bluchers arrival to his final defeat, imprisoned on the remote island of St Helena and his "mysterious" death :roll: ...it couldn't have been written more dramatically :-D His life is the perfect material for novels :wink:

[Quicksurf]

Interesting that he made the same mistake as Hitler: invading Russia.