Napoleon (4 Viewers)

[OldDragon]

.... I am actually working on a thread related to Buonaparte and his myth. I hope to post it in a near future in the historical discussion section. ...

Hi Pierre

Looking forward to your post ... should be good for healthy discussion. We need remember that the man, the Emperor is still held in high respect in France, and by others elsewhere.

OD

 

[Capitolron]

Re: K&C July Dispatches

Napoleon was a Great Man - you can have your different views on the Wars and prefer your Anglo point of view, fine with me and in some cases I would agree - but, NO QUESTION HE WAS A GREAT LEADER. That is why an entire period of History was named after him.

Here is some pics again of his Tomb in Paris :

 

[damian]

Re: K&C July Dispatches

There are a number of similarities between Hitler and Napoleon. Both are popular with toy soldier collectors, and both were ultimately defeated by massive coalitions of nations. Both came to grief in Russia and both underestimated the fierce determination of the British under some very skillful and wise politicians. It was Pitt the Younger who steeled the resolve of the British people and who created the coalitions that would ultimately defeat Napoleon. Just as in 1940 so in 1800 Britain stood alone against a great European dictator. It was Churchill who in the dark days of 1940 rallied the British to resist and ultimately triumph. Just as Pitt the Younger knew that only by acting together could Europe be free so Churchill knew he would have to forge and alliance with the free world and even with the Soviets to achieve victory.
The similarities are indeed interesting
Regards
Damian

 

[Harrytheheid]

Re: K&C July Dispatches

Hmmm... so the revisionist history stuff has migrated over to here.
Interesting.

Cheers
Nice H

 

[Capitolron]

Re: K&C July Dispatches

Damian

Taking note of your British bias on the subject - I don't think you can really say that Hitler and Napoleon were the same - there are some interesting historic events which they have in common - but, you probally could take any number of British Monarchs (GEORGE III) and do some comparisons as well with other not too well liked Dictators.

It works both ways you know.

Ron

 

[nmrocks]

Re: K&C July Dispatches

Damian

Taking note of your British bias on the subject - I don't think you can really say that Hitler and Napoleon were the same - there are some interesting historic events which they have in common - but, you probally could take any number of British Monarchs (GEORGE III) and do some comparisons as well with other not too well liked Dictators.

It works both ways you know.

Ron

The Pope calls "Moral relevance the greatest threat to Mankind".

Here's the similarities I see, Caused the death of Millions and the destruction of great cities for no better reason than a desire to rule the world. A man who would be king from another country takes power and destroys the country that embraced him, Killed generations of France's manhood once again for personel ambition.
We have had many discussions on this forum about hero worship of some very questionable personalities? What makes an apocalyptic character like Napoleon somehow respectable or worse worship worthy? Is it that it happened 200 years ago? He was a syphillitic ego maniac and probably a sociopath.
Ray

 

[jazzeum]

I don't want this thread to turn into a catfight. At the first sign of trouble, it will be deleted.

 

[nmrocks]

I don't want this thread to turn into a catfight. At the first sign of trouble, it will be deleted.

Brad,
Have I stated any false hoods here?

 

[jazzeum]

I'm not getting involved in the pros and cons of Napoleon. Just keep it clean, let's not make it personal and it stays. My last pronouncement on the matter.

 

[Capitolron]

Ray

Thats your opinion - fine - I simply disagree.

I could go through and pick & choose various English Monarchs who rampage France and other Nations throughout the World and make the same argument that you have about Napoleon.

The English Civilization is not squeaky clean either Although, my ancestors are from that wonderful island (& Ireland too) - lets not pretend that Napoleon was the only bad boy on the block - if at all anyway.

Over simplifying the wide generalizations of the Napoleonic period does not make a sound argument - IMHO.

Ron

 

[Louis Badolato]

I have no strong opinions on the subject of the Napoleonic era, but it would appear to me that it was more a war of the established monarchies (the Allies) versus the upstart new emperor (Napoleon), not a battle of democracies versus dictators. I suspect that the average soldier in Napoleon's army had a better chance of advancement on merit than in any of the Allied armies. I am also not so sure that the Hitler comparison is fair, because as far as I know Napoleon did not advocate genocide (although he was plenty brutal with the Spanish Guerillas) or have a racial supremicist agenda. Had Napoleon defeated the Allies, I doubt the world would have sank into a dark age of tyranny, as it would of had the Nazi's won. I think the Napoleonic leaders are closer in motive to the WWI leaders than the WWII leaders.

 

[tdubel]

Re: K&C July Dispatches

Napoleon was a Great Man - you can have your different views on the Wars and prefer your Anglo point of view, fine with me and in some cases I would agree - but, NO QUESTION HE WAS A GREAT LEADER. That is why an entire period of History was named after him.

I would have to agree with this statement as he did warrant the naming of a period of history. Of course, had he won, he would have been respected and one of the greatest men in history.

Same thing happened in the American Civil War, the Confederacy lost and Lee became an "old man", Pickett a "Buffoon", Forrest a "Devil" ,etc while Grant went on to become President, Sherman a wealthy man, etc. History is always much more kind to the winners


IMO

TD

 

[nmrocks]

Ray

Thats your opinion - fine - I simply disagree.

I could go through and pick & choose various English Monarchs who rampage France and other Nations throughout the World and make the same argument that you have about Napoleon.

The English Civilization is not squeaky clean either Although, my ancestors are from that wonderful island (& Ireland too) - lets not pretend that Napoleon was the only bad boy on the block - if at all anyway.

Over simplifying the wide generalizations of the Napoleonic period does not make a sound argument - IMHO.

Ron

Ron,
1. How does that change anything I said?
2. Do you seriously believe that a man with that kind of a legacy is worth exhaulted praise? fi so please explain the "Good" side of Napoleon?
Ray

 

[Capitolron]

Ray

On point 1 - We each have our bias on this part of history - You view Napoleon through an exclusive Anglo lens - I view him through a French lens - nothing changes what you said - as I stated it is your opinion (however, simplistic and over generalized - IMO) and you have that right.

On point 2 - The forum is not large enough for me to tell you how this great man Napoleon changed Warfare, Rights of the Common Man, Governmental Administration, Art, Music and Politics.

You seem to find some quick and unsophisticated words to try to demean a great man who History has judged on the level of Caesar and Alexander the Great.

It is your right to make your naive anglo slanted statements - but, scholars throughout the ages have proven you wrong - long before I may have the chance.

Ron

 

[Capitolron]

I felt something has been lacking on this thread !!

 

[Njja]

Okay sometime I just don't understand Ron's fascination with Napoleon.

I always get confused with the Napoleon II to say nothing for Napoleon III.

Myself I have always preferred a cannoli to a Napoleon anyway......but in

the interest of being fair I decided to look up Napoleon.......and just look at

what I found!

Njja

 

[Mister Dave]

I knew that guy looked familiar.

 

[Capitolron]

Njja



LOL LOL LOL

Now - the secret is out !

 

[damian]

The British way of government was ne of gradual evolution. Towards full fledged democracy. Not for nothing is the House of Commons referred to as the Mother Parliament. Ever since the Magna Carta there had been gradual limits placed on the power of the king. This was different to what happened in Europe where absolute monarchy held sway. Louis XIV said "L etat cest moi". Struggle and violence associated with this Britsih way. The English civil war was a struggle between radical parliamentarians and gradual and limited royalists. The result was the only time in Britain where there has been a dictator.Oliver Cromwell ruled with an iron hand and when he died they restored James to the throne and dug up and executed Cromwell's corpse. The American colonists took some of their inspiration from the glorious revolution of 1689 when the Catholic James was replaced by the Protestant William of Orange. Now Napoleon epitimised for the British the old idea of Cromwell. A strong man who ruled with an iron fist. That is not to say he did not institute great projects and new legal codes, but he was not the sort of democracy that the British understood as providing the true flourishing of the human spirit. Let us remember that democratic understanding evolved and progressed in the US as well. The original declaration which said we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal excluded black men who were slaves. So as we progress we understand more. But the Angle Saxons have always been suspicious of the big man who is bigger than the system. The man who bends the rules to suit himself. Look at Richard Nixon despite all his many achievements the fact that he felt himslef to be bigger than the constitution is what everyone seems to hold against him. For these reasons I remain suspicious of Napoleon.
Regards
Damian

 

[UKReb]

Oh! dear Ron you sure have started one here

Your "great man" has been glorified and equally demonised ever since his demise. He was seen as the saviour and preserver of the Revolution and as the traitor of it's most fundamental ideals.Some saw him as the veritable soul of the French people while for others he was simply an opportunistic foreigner.

He introduced the concept of total war and conscription with the ideal that it was the duty of ordinary citizens to fight. This concept led to the US Civil War and indirectly WWI & II and those participants who adopted his model quickly realised that by targeting and decimating the civilian population vastly reduced the fighting capacity of their enemy.

He was without doubt a military genius but when he made mistakes they were catastrophic. No one has ever given me a viable explanation of what on earth he hoped to gain by invading Russia-instigated simply because the Czar would not participate in his Continental blockade because of the adverse effects it was having on the Russian economy.

Was he barbaric? Well he didn't exactly cover himself with glory during his Egyptian campaign, one example was Jaffa where his soldiers slaughtered over 2000 Turks as they tried to surrender and spent the next three days in a free for all blood fest slaughtering every single inhabitant of the city including a further 3000 Turkish soldier prisoners. If his army had not been weakened by the plague history would have shown a repeat performance of the above had they taken the fortress at Acre.

But he rid Europe of the corrupt aristocracy and opened the eyes of the down trodden ordinary citizen to the ideals of a true democracy that became a model for the world. His suppression of the tyranny (at the time) of the Holy Roman Catholic Church allowed freedom of expression which would have resulted in death under previous regimes.
His sponsorship of scientific exploration led directly to major discoveries that simply would not have been allowed by the church. He inspired a flourish in art, literature, law and politics. He instituted the metric system which has had a profound influence across the whole of Europe. His Napoleonic Codes (Civil Laws) are still in effect in France, Italy and even Louisiana where I believe they still use the Napoleonic term "parish" instead of "county" (As an aside the Louisiana Purchase you guys got from him was a pretty good deal at three cents an acre)

So all in all Ron in my humble opinion your "Great Man" is a bit of a mixed bag but it is a fact that history is darn more interesting because of him.

Reb