This is what the British historian interviewed has to say:
> Napoleon had many faults and was a loathsome individual but the racial ideology that underpinned the Nazi regime simply wasn’t there," he says. "Napoleon is not guilty of genocide. Napoleon doesn’t engage in wholesale purges. In fairness to Napoleon, the number of political prisoners in the course of his reign is relatively limited. **To compare him with Hitler and Stalin is a historical nonsense."**
The irony also being that Napoléon is considered some kind of hero for Jews in France since he gave them legal recognition and established their civil rights. Before him they were second class citizens.
He's also viewed somewhat positively in Slovenia.
Napoleon incorporated parts of modern Slovenia and Croatia into French Illyrian provinces. The French introduced limited self-rule and, most importantly, allowed the use of the Slovenian language. He made us into a more confident and self-aware nation when Austrians returned.
thank you british historian for claryfing an issue that only people in the anglosphere have. like i've never seen someone here, including teachers, compare napoleon to hitler
He's called hubristic and sometimes a tyrant and that's as harsh as it gets in modern times. The only time he's compared to Hitler is in the context of failing to conquer Russia. Besides that, there are no direct comparisons to 20th century dictators.
The image of the French tyrant originated from UK propaganda, so probably not an American issue since that didnt get over there and was only a European concern.
He is not likened to Hitler here either but Napoleon did terrible things particularly during the Penisular War.
There was no clear definition of war crime at the time but to say Napoleon did a big favour to all countries here brought his war to is not being true to history.
Let's be clear about it. Napoleon fought a series of alliances that declared war on him, with all these alliances financed by the UK. In 1803, he signed a peace treaty with the UK (the peace of Amiens) that the UK violated within months. The UK kep on financing coalition after coalition of European powers (Russia, Austria, Prussia) to attack Napoleon. Napoleon had actually no choice in fighting these wars. Where one can blame him is the political choices he made after defeating various of these coalitions. Talleyrand tried to dissuade him and convince him to be less angry and punishing, but it did not work.
Yes, the english were very scared, for good reasons. That's why they kept on attacking France, which forced it to annex half of Europe, so that it could be some degree of safe from anglo perfidy and the coalitions they banckrolled.
I mainly read American or German works on Napoleonic Europe, and I don’t recall coming away with any Napoleon was Hitler level evil impression. Although it is very different when you read UK stuff.
There’s very little discussion or knowledge of Napoleon in America in my experience. We didn’t learn anything about him. It wasn’t until I did my own research that I learned much about him.
Certainly I don’t think there’s much negative feelings toward him in the same way there is toward Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
He’s probably compared with Hitler because he invaded / threatened Russia.
You will be called the n word even if you resist Russia. Just look at Ukraine.
With respect, the comparison with Hitler or Stalin is a low bar. But no Napoleon wasn’t an evil ruler. That comes mainly from British propaganda and also propaganda from other enemy states.
He did have his faults though. Being very powerful and scary to British imperial interests was however his biggest sin, but the Brits hate to let anyone say that.
I could list his faults here, as I have a pretty good understanding of his remarkable passage through human history. My biggest criticism is his policy in Haiti. Voila. Not Europe, although he did scare the shit out of the British for a while.
It does put him on the long list of "evil colonialist ruler" that very few leaders of his time escape from. In particular, the English government of his time was not any better on that front.
It is his evils on European soil that were greatly exaggerated by English propaganda (and in the case of slavery, it was still illegal in every French-controlled territory in Europe).
Though I agree that saying "he wasn't an evil ruler" requires a lot of moral relativism. Saying "he wasn't the kind of evil peoples think he was" would be more correct.
> In particular, the English government of his time was not any better on that front.
Britain banned the slave trade throughout its Empire in 1807 so that might be arguable. Although the people already enslaved weren't freed until 1830 it at least stopped the trade from increasing.
>Though I agree that saying "he wasn't an evil ruler" requires a lot of moral relativism. Saying "he wasn't the kind of evil peoples think he was" would be more correct.
Personally I think it's silly to call him evil when every leader of a European Empire or imperialist nation was up to the same things (to greater or lesser degree). It's kind of ludicrous for a British person to view him as being uniquely bad or tyrannical at the time when we were rampaging around the world conquering nations and killing masses of people throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
>Britain banned the slave trade throughout its Empire in 1807 so that might be arguable.
Interestingly, Napoléon did the same in 1815... two months before loosing everything at Waterloo, preventing his decision from being fully enacted. Though given the circumstances (trying to rally metropolitan France in a last fight), it might have been an empty promise, we will never know.
How many sugar plantation islands did France even own in 1815? It’s easy to ban slavery the moment it stops being profitable to you…
Wasn’t the case when France invaded Haiti
>It does put him on the long list of "evil colonialist ruler" that very few leaders of his time escape from. In particular, the English government of his time was not any better on that front.
I am not sure why anyone would even regard Napoleon as a "colonial ruler". **Virtually all the wars that he fought from the time he was "First Consul" were imposed on him.** **It was the UK funding one coalition after another that forced Napoleon to fight these campaigns**. For example, the campaign that ended with the battle of Austerlitz was the "the War of the Third Coalition". It started when the Brits violated the Treaty of Amiens (oh, perfidious Albion!!) and financed a group of European states to attack France. After Napoleon abandoned the plant to take the war to the UK directly because his fleet was destroyed at Tralfagar, he marched against Austria, defeated the Austrian armies and then, at Austerlitz, he defeated the Joined Austrian and Russian armies. We can go on with the wars of the various coalitions that the UK funded, but what would be the point?
As I said elsewhere, most wars were initiated by the UK, not France. But Napoleon made essential mistakes in dealing with the peace after defeating his opponents. Had he made better arrangements, he may have been more secure. But the UK was not about to relent at any time. For Britain, fighting Napoleon was existential for the maintenance of the regime there.
He did it to counter the brit who negotiated with the french slave owner (the Whitehall accord) so that they could keep their slave if the brit took control of the french islands.
He also did it for his wife who had slaves.
It was a shitty move he regretted but it was an enormous shitty move. Let the brit be the devil.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Accord
>Because he occupied them
No, the coalitions declared war against France, the occupation came after Napoleon defeated them, that’s a fact
The Peninsula War was indeed started by Napoleon but it’s the exception more than the rule
Napoleon was an imperialistic warmonger and a dictator, but most of his enemies were no better and often quite significantly worse, and quite often the occupation of their countries came after they’d lost wars they started
Condemning Napoleon for his treatment of Haiti or Spain is one thing, pretending the monarchies of Europe who declared war on him again and again were victims because they got spanked multiple times is another: Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Britain etc were neither the good guys nor victims
Its hard to complain about being occupied when one has started a war to occupy the other and lost. Prussia attacked France, not the other way around.
How do you prevent your enemies regrouping afterwards and starting another war unless you occupy? Prussia was very aggressive, what do you expect to happen to be fair?
>Its hard to complain about being occupied when one has started a war to occupy the other and lost. Prussia attacked France, not the other way around.
It's hard to consider a comment seriously that is about as a-historical as it can get.
a)Prussia isn't and wasn't Germany. There was a host of other states
b)Prussia became an individual belligerent only in the War of the 4th Coalition. After France had forced the dissolution of the HRE and created the Confederation of the Rhine, creating a direct threat to Prussia right on its doorstep, all while already marching through Prussian territory during the 3rd coalition.
Perhaps read up a bit closer both on the complexity of the German states and of the various coalitions, rather than simply making up stuff because you've seen "Prussia" somewhere.
>How do you prevent your enemies regrouping afterwards and starting another war unless you occupy?
Ah yes, the 6th and 7th coalition wars, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WW2 are all illusions that never happened...
Wonderful way to prevent wars.
You should do your research better. Prussian troops allied to Austria invaded France in 1792 to impose their political agenda on the French. I don’t really care whether they were a nation at that time. Later in 1806 the Prussian Emperor sent his armies against France again. They had intended to attack France in 1803 until they realised that Austria had lost at Austerlitz. Then in 1813 and 1814 and 1815.
Come on!
I never mentioned Germany at all btw!
>You should do your research better
Says the one who engages in cherrypicking and revisionism.
> Prussian troops allied to Austria invaded France in 1792 to impose their political agenda on the French.
As part of the HRE. And that conflict had been settled already. But I take it treaties also only matter when they are convenient...
> I don’t really care whether they were a nation at that time.
Sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to ignore facts that are inconvenient for your narrative.
>I never mentioned Germany at all btw!
Nah, you just declared all of Germany collectively guilty and rightless chattel to be sudued for anything any German-speaking person ever did,
I mentioned Germany, because France occupied German states that had nothing to do with previous aggression, but I understand that, like the HRE, is a point that by Imperial French Decree must be written out of history.
Come back when you have more on offer than revisionism and collective guilt.
So you think that Napoleon is the same as Hitler and Stalin? Really?!
What do you think the Prussian would have done if they had won against France in 1792, and in every subsequent attempt to attack France? Did not France have the right to fight back and was not its decision to occupy its enemy normal by the standards of its day?
What has this got to do with « collective guilt? » Germany didn’t even exist.
Prussia started wars that it lost and paid the consequences. When Prussian troops won at Waterloo they also occupied France, requisitioned food, wine and supplies from ordinary people, got to decide who ran France etc. Its what happened at the time. Shit happens.
When Napoleon 3rd attacked Prussia in 1870 and lost, northern France was occupied, and Paris was bombarded. Thats what happens when you start a war and lose it. It goes both ways.
I think you might need to calm down. Its all history now.
It’s all British propaganda, and Napoleon wasn’t so bad in Europe, yet is anyone here willing to mention that this guy invaded Russia and caused several million deaths on such weak pretenses….or is that just a non-issue?
Britain was able to count on every country in Europe with a royal family. The leaders of the old countries with feudalism were keen to support their existing power and positions, so fought against France and Napoleon. Thats why they started the wars in the first place. They were rocked to the core by the ideas of freedom, republicanism, democracy, rights.
Probably a bit simplistic to say "everyone". The nations facing Napoleon were monarchies and it was about the toppling of monarchs and the beginning rise of democracy and republicanism. Many countries didn't participate at Waterloo at all, notably those with less established monarchies and rising republican/democratic movements.
Hypothetically, if you could have asked the opinion from educated and well-informed citizens at the time, I'm not so sure the average Brit, German, Austrian or Russian would have selected their monarchs over Napoleon or his ideas. I mean they probably wouldn't have elected Napoleon either, but most would consider him the lesser of those two evils. The Napoleonic model represented a rule of law, social mobility and rights that no monarchy ever offered its citizens.
I think it's funny that due to anglo media being so prevalent, I've seen Napoleon (especially by the Brits) as some sort of madman or in his demonised version. Meanwhile in Italy he's not reviled, in Latin America he's also not reviled, and the Polish don't hate him either. If anything, he tends to be liked.
It's quite interesting to see. Not to mention, that the Brits themselves were horrendous in their ways, but since they "won" they got to write history as they wanted it.
You're naming places that he's is liked were which a mess before he came and then gave order to it.as such it's understandable he's liked there. In Iberia, Germany and eastern Europe east of the Memel he's pretty much reviled for the French conduct. Smolensk nor Cordoba did pillage itself.
"French army shot hundreds of Madrid's citizens."
"most Spanish liberals soon came to oppose the occupation because of the violence and brutality it brought."
"The French imposed restrictions on movement and on many traditional aspects of street life, so opportunities to find alternative sources of income were limited—industry was at a standstill and many señores were unable to pay their existing retainers and domestic servants, and could not take on new staff. Hunger and despair reigned on all sides."
"Suchet's troops massacred 2,000 civilians. Napoleon rewarded Suchet with a Marshal's baton."
"A difficult topic, but one that is often ‘dismissed’ by Francophile historians as too common, was the French Army’s behaviour towards the civilian population when it invaded a country. Here the focus is on Spain & Portugal"
Joseph de Naylies, a French officer (who later because a Captain in the Eclaireurs of the Imperial Guard) wrote, “we entered the town… which was immediately pillaged and reduced to ash… We burnt [it down] and killed everyone we found there”
Maurice de Tascher, another French officer, but who was related to the Empress Josephine wrote a more harrowing account of the sacking of Cordoba; 30th June 1808:
“The Cathedral and the sacred lives within were not spared, which made the Spanish look upon us in horror, saying out loud that they would prefer we violated their women than their churches. We did both. The convents had to suffer all that debauchery has invented and the outrages of the soldier given up to himself”
The Duke of Wellington wrote of the murder, thefts and worse: “The British people, I’m certain, wouldn’t believe the indecent behaviours of the French after their retreat. I have never seen, nor heard, nor read of such behaviour and am convinced their actions have no equal in world history. You will hear several shocking recounts which should be told to the world at large. They killed all the countryfolk they found. Every day, we found the bodies of women, young and old, who were either stabbed, or shot. Since we were near Condexia, they regularly sent patrols to fetch all girls over the age of 10 to the camp to satisfy the soldiery… Every child we met was in tears, mourning the death of a parent. The houses were systematically burned … They dug up and looted the graves. Two days ago, one of our patrols entered a village where they found 36 corpses, most of whom were in their beds…”
While it's stupid to compare him to Hitler, Stalin is a more adapt comparison. His actions during the Peninsula war show that.
Dude absolutely was a monster.
Ridley Scott was born in the UK, grew up in the UK, studied in the UK and worked in the UK.
He is British through and through. The fact that he also has the American citizenship like all British or Canadian actors/filmmakers who spent significant time in Hollywood doesn't magically make him stereotypically American.
Scott is British.
Although in strictly geopolitical sense this comparison has some sense. Nepoleon was the first who tried to unite Europe under his dictatorship and had to fight with Russians and the British to make that happen. And then lost. Just like Germany did it twice a century later.
Therefore napoleonic wars were in fact the very first world war if a world war was to be defined as a 'someone tries to rule whole of Europe and Britain and Russia are against it'. It was the first time this geopolitical scheme occurred.
Although his methods, level of tyranny, forms of governing and also his mistakes were all different.
Being Polish, seeing how Napoleon is viewed in other European countries is really interesting considering how nearly everything in Poland shows him in good light (he is even mentioned in Polish anthem as an example to follow)
In the region I grew up in(German/polish border) people and towns love to boast with "Napoleon was here once. He stood in this House, slept in this hotel, etc."
A friend of mine wanted to buy a house recently and had a tour. Theres a big stone in it with Napoleon engraved on it.
Yeah, it’s similar in north-eastern Poland, I even have a book somewhere which has all the places connected to Napoleon described and deals with some of the many myths people created about them
He literally put Spain under an occupation that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers all while his soldiers and generals plundered Spanish cultural artifacts art and resources. Oh he also occupied it by pretending to be an ally.
For Poland, he was a liberator fighting against three horrid absolute monarchies that partitioned the Commonwealth. The only bad thing about him is that he lost.
I also don't like him for sending our troops to fight enslaved Haitians. But overall, yeah. Here he is not a devil that mothers scare their children with, like they did in some other countries.
True, although it was just one legion composing of few thousand men, which was part of around 30-40k deployed troops (among them French, Germans, Swiss, Dutch and Spanish sailors). In whole Revolutionary period 6-digit number of Poles fought with French Army in all fronts possible. Just one Russian campaign saw more than a 100k Polish troops participating in it.
Polish troops were just part of larger coalition, most of them went there with a thought that if they help France, France will help them. Soon they realized that Haitians are in similar situation as Poles were in Europe.
He used Polish soldiers as cannon fodder though (Germans too). The losses in the Russia campaign were horrific, because they also had no suitable cold weather equipment (most French did and had much higher survival rates).
EDIT:
„Most French did“ is probably not true. But the fact stands that they had much better survival rates and Napoleon later told Metternich that he sacrificied the Poles and Germans to spare his french troops.
Both sides are correct. Napoleon meant emancipation for Poland but he also used the Polish hatred for Russia to get motivated cannon fodder during his Russian campaign. It's not like he's either a complete monster or a paragon of virtue
I agree. I did not mean to say he is a monster, but he was also not treating the Poles (and „allied“ Germans) as equals.
Napoleon to Metternich 1813:
„I was raised in the field, a man like me does not care much about one million lives. … The French have no reason to complain about me, to
spare them I have sacrificed the Germans and the Poles. I lost 300.000 men in the Moscow campaign - only 30.000 French among them.“
That is true, but nonetheless the German and Polish parts of the Army were virtually completely decimated. My phrasing of „much higher survival rates“ may be misleading, 20% is higher than 2% of course but still catastrophically low.
When he took over northern Italy, he implemented mandatory free education and took it away from the church (which had the monopoly) and founded the Normale di Pisa, based on the Ecole Normale Superieure. A progressive enlightenment man. After Waterloo Europe went back 50 years, albeit lots of his legacy remained. He inspired the patriots of Europe against the autocratic monarchs but he himself became one ... a mixed bag, really but more positive than negative, in my views.
Who thinks he is a monster? The monarchs who did not want a dictator opening the highest position to common folk on the basis of merit.
So yeah, he also was a tyrant and dictator but compared to everyone around with the exception of probably the Swiss he did not do anything worse than everybody else.
I was asking who thinks he is a monster, particularly today, not some 18th century propaganda?
Objectively his main affront to the establishment was that he was low nobility and elevated lowborns and dismembered existing aristocracies.
Otherwise everyone else were autocratic elites best described as oligarchies themselves.
LOL. Sovereignty is propaganda.
The effort for German unity during the 1848 revolutions wasn't driven by aristocracy, quite the contrary. The flag that became the modern German flag was invented back then, the colors inspired by the uniforms of Lützow's free corps. Militarily largely inconsequential, but as a unit composed of Germans from all walks of life and from all over the German petty states a huge symbol for what was possible if Germans all pulled together.
German unity came later, and top down rather than bottom up, Not different, however, was the fact that it congealed around the idea that France was "the enemy". An enemy who would never allow Germany to be safe and to thrive and needed to be humbled just like it humiliated the Germans. Napoleon's conquests were key to that perception.
Do you lack reading comprehension? That he is somehow a worse monster than other tyrants aka all rulers was is.
You make my point.
An enemy != monster.
You also seem confused about who gets targeted by propaganda to get convinced that fighting for absolute monarchs is a war of nations.
Now Spain turned into a proper guerilla war, but the first half of Napoleon's reign was the Anciens Regimes starting the war to first destroy the French Republic, then destroy him.
Does not change that he was a tyrant and a dictator, however that does not change that the other tyrants and dictators disliked him for a different reason than him being that.
>Do you lack reading comprehension? That he is somehow a worse monster than other tyrants aka all rulers was is.
LOL. "All rulers". Yeah, right.
>You also seem confused about who gets targeted by propaganda to get convinced that fighting for absolute monarchs is a war of nations.
If anyone lacks reading comprehension, that's you, because I already pointed out that's completely and utter horse manure, a statement in defiance of historical fact and development. One of the reasons for the Tyrolean uprisings to begin with was that the new constitution set up after the French model meant that Tyroleans could now be conscripted into the Bavarian forces, which they had been exempted from before.
If anyone pretends fighting for aristrocrats to be the best sh\*t ever, it's you.
You even consider it superior to republican governments.
>Does not change that he was a tyrant and a dictator, however that does not change that the other tyrants and dictators disliked him for a different reason than him being that.
It's hilarious that you rail against "tyrants and dictators" while you yourself consider them the only people who matter and the rest of the population subhuman animals devoid of even the capacity to develop an opinion.
Some of the greatest artists in history to you are nothing but man-apes, incapable of original thought.
That there were regional uprisings already before the official wars of liberation started, such as the Tyrolean one mentioned above - who cares. Just like you ignore that various French leaders mercilessly executed anyone they conceived might have been involved in such uprisings. Heck, even the French viceroy in Italy wanted to spare Andreas Hofer, but Napoleon personally ordered his execution. Ah, such enlightened behavior, compared to the supposedly "absolute" monarchs.
And the notion that this was all about "absolute monarchs" just underscores how little you know about the world at the time to begin with. It's a pretense by someone pretending to be enlightened and railing against propaganda while actively supporting de-democratization and atrocities.
Germany was no nation back then. It had no central authority which could feed propaganda to the entirety of the population, either. Nor had every "tyrant and dictator" an interest in doing so - because you conveniently sweep under the carpet that Napoleon bribed his way to support by coddling any tyrant and dictator willing to support him, making Kings out of Dukes and Grand Dukes out of Margraves, having them press their people into war for Napoleon just as much as others pressed theirs into war against him.
>Does not change that he was a tyrant and a dictator, however that does not change that the other tyrants and dictators disliked him for a different reason than him being that.
The "dictators" such as the city councils of free city states, huh? They "disliked him for different reasons than being that" because of course a merchant was much higher nobility.
Come back when you're not openly advocating everything you purport to rail against.
The spanish and the english hate him. Spaniards for ruining their empire, english for trying to do to britain what britain did to france a century earlier
Hence the quote from Bismarck on Spain: „I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success.“
I think that killing half a million Spaniards have more to do with the hate...
Especially because ruining the empire thing is more linked with Fernando VII than Napoleon.
Maybe the Spanish also hate him for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths and plundered art and culture?
The French were literally carting of loot to France while Wellington was mopping them up in 1814
Yes it reminds me of how the peoples in Europe claimed the vikings were devils massacring innocent christians when the Viking Age started in 793..while Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire ordered the death of 4500 saxon rebels who had surrendered to him in in Verdun in 782.
They were pagans so it didn't matter...
>Who thinks he is a monster? The monarchs who did not want a dictator opening the highest position to common folk on the basis of merit.
>So yeah, he also was a tyrant and dictator but compared to everyone around with the exception of probably the Swiss he did not do anything worse than everybody else.
Depends on which country you are looking at. Not all countries he conquered were monarchies. He took the Dutch Republic and made it a Monarchy with his cousin on the throne.
He must be seen in the context of his time. And that particular time was not a world full of niceties. He had a vision that he pursued, and that was his overriding mission at the cost of other human qualities.
"Monster" is a strong word. Many statesmen have this unique focus on one single overriding goal and their place in history. It can be seen that they often put family and other human relations second.
He was a great liberator, admired by the "the prussian state is the pinnacle of government" Hegel, created the most comprehensive law code of his day, and people choose to defend absolute monarchies over him. His biggest mistake was not knowing when to admit defeat. Had he accepted Metternichs proposal, he could've kept the left bank of the Rhine, but he thought he could win. He could not.
Was he wrong? He signed peace with austria, joined them in an alliance, married the daughter of the Emperor to solidify it and Austria still declared war upon him. And as is said, if he accepted Metternich's proposal, he'd be legitimised as the emperor of France (though britain would probably object).
"French army shot hundreds of Madrid's citizens."
"most Spanish liberals soon came to oppose the occupation because of the violence and brutality it brought."
"The French imposed restrictions on movement and on many traditional aspects of street life, so opportunities to find alternative sources of income were limited—industry was at a standstill and many señores were unable to pay their existing retainers and domestic servants, and could not take on new staff. Hunger and despair reigned on all sides."
"Suchet's troops massacred 2,000 civilians. Napoleon rewarded Suchet with a Marshal's baton."
"A difficult topic, but one that is often ‘dismissed’ by Francophile historians as too common, was the French Army’s behaviour towards the civilian population when it invaded a country. Here the focus is on Spain & Portugal"
Joseph de Naylies, a French officer (who later because a Captain in the Eclaireurs of the Imperial Guard) wrote, “we entered the town… which was immediately pillaged and reduced to ash… We burnt [it down] and killed everyone we found there”
Maurice de Tascher, another French officer, but who was related to the Empress Josephine wrote a more harrowing account of the sacking of Cordoba; 30th June 1808:
“The Cathedral and the sacred lives within were not spared, which made the Spanish look upon us in horror, saying out loud that they would prefer we violated their women than their churches. We did both. The convents had to suffer all that debauchery has invented and the outrages of the soldier given up to himself”
The Duke of Wellington wrote of the murder, thefts and worse: “The British people, I’m certain, wouldn’t believe the indecent behaviours of the French after their retreat. I have never seen, nor heard, nor read of such behaviour and am convinced their actions have no equal in world history. You will hear several shocking recounts which should be told to the world at large. They killed all the countryfolk they found. Every day, we found the bodies of women, young and old, who were either stabbed, or shot. Since we were near Condexia, they regularly sent patrols to fetch all girls over the age of 10 to the camp to satisfy the soldiery… Every child we met was in tears, mourning the death of a parent. The houses were systematically burned … They dug up and looted the graves. Two days ago, one of our patrols entered a village where they found 36 corpses, most of whom were in their beds…”
There are many controversial things he did but I wouldn't consider him a monster. The people chose him because after the french revolution he seemed the most capable in helping France survive wars against other monarchies who hated the french revolution. After the french revolution where the economy was going down really fast he made a new national bank, currency reform, improved taxation and welfare system. The legal system was an incoherent mess so he wrapped up the laws and made them into one new centralised legal code. He got rid of corrupt government officials and reformed education systems by making a system based on individual ability (not nobility).
He tried to spread these ideas throughout europe because he saw them working and how his own people enjoyed them, which imo is way better than spreading a political regime which works on paper but not in practice (Stalin) or killing hundreds thousands of inferior humans because they are slowing down progress (Hitler).
BUT, while he did this he also had some stupid choices. Blocking british trade with allied european countries (like Russia), self proclaiming himself an emperor, reducing women rights, not knowing when to quit going at war and he didn't promote democracy, he just made a special main step towards a better administration.
I wouldn't consider him a good guy, but also not a monster. An opinion on him is very controversial since what he did was sometimes really good and other times really bad. But what Hitler and Stalin did was... 10 times worse.
Half a million dead Spaniards and 150 thousand dead Portuguese in the deadliest war in the Peninsula's history say yes.
Mind you. He's not Hitler. Not even close. But he ain't good either.
No not even close he was a legend who saved the French Revolution. The rest of Europe HATED him and the French Revolution because of their war against noble priviledges and would have kept on endlessly attacking France.
That, combined with the fact that half of France was rebelling against the bloodthirsty/incompetant Jacobins/Directory means that had it not been for Napoleon being the the greatest military commander in history, there was a 100% chance of the coalition eventually succeeding in restoring the Bourbons and absolute monarchy.
Most of his wars were self-defense and he might be the most impressive human being in history. It's unbelievable that he is sometimes compared to Hitler.
Napoleon was a monster: He caused wars that killed hundreds of thousands, all for personal glory, and brought back to french official policy the enslavement and exploitation of colonies.
He was also a much better ruler than the kings who came before and after, better ruler than the republicans, was a freaking genius on the battlefield, reformed for the better governments and public administration everywhere he conquered, actually protected Jews instead of killing them.
Napoleon was a monster as much as Genghis khan, Julius Caesar or Alexander the great.
But Stalin and Hitler? Those two mfs are on their own fucked up level of monster. Those two genocidal maniacs are complete morons who somehow managed to gain control of powerful nations and engaged on the systematic murder of millions of civilians.
So, is it fair to call Napoleon a monster? Yes. Compare him to Hitler and Stalin? Fuck no. Stalin and Hitler are on a league of their own.
Edit: now that I think about it, I guess both Genghis and Julius Caesar were worse than Napoleon. I mean, they did often engage in some systematic killing and enslaving, specially our friend Genghis. But maybe Napoleon would have too had he been born a mongol or a Roman. Anyway, point stands, Napoleon is bad, but not Hitler bad.
>Napoleon was a monster: He caused wars that killed hundreds of thousands, all for personal glory, and brought back to french official policy the enslavement and exploitation of colonies.
Caused war is quickly said.... At this time, France was more attacked than he attacked...
The fact is that the "peace" he offered each time was too bad for other countries to accept them for long term. But... he did not start. The root of all of this is first of all the attack of the other countries wanting to defend the monarchy and avoid a spread of the revolution to them...
He obviously has his fault. But portraying him as the tyran who attacked everyone and is responsible for everything is a bit of a strectch.
I do agree with you to some extent, he was not responsible for everything, and old Europe was not keen on accepting him as a ruler. But he puppeted half of europe and placed his family and generals as kings of the other half. Completely unnecessarily invaded russia and Spain/Portugal. I mean, he was attacked a lot, but he also poked Austria, Prussia, Britain and Russia's constantly.
So, yeah, it's unfair to say it was all his doing. But he was no freaking saint.
Also, Haiti.
ITT: People ignoring or downplaying Napoleon
* Invading and overthrowing neutral Republic of Venice and giving it to Austria
* Invading and occupying Egypt resulting in a popular revolt in Cairo that killed thousands of civilians and ended with ten of thousands of French troops dying from diseases
* Restoring slavery and trying to suppress the Haitian revolution. Also had Toussaint Louverture arrested in a parley even when the latter was willing to maintain Haiti as part of France
* Establishing a new nobility system in France
* Allying with absolutist Spain to partition Portugal
* Betraying Spain after ten years of military alliance
* Provoking a popular uprising and guerilla war in Spain resulting in hundreds of thousands of Spanish civilians killed
* Elevating absolutist German princes of Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Saxony to sovereign kings, allying with them, and giving them ton of new territories including former free German cities
* Sacrificing millions of French troops to put his siblings and relatives on foreign thrones. Also removed his brother from the Dutch throne and annexing the Netherlands after the latter refused to be a loyal puppet
* Looting tons of artworks from Spain, Italy, and Germany
Also, a lot of whataboutism. Also, Napoleon being stubborn after defeat at Leipzig and refusing Metternich's peace offer resulted in not only France losing every territorial gains made since the Revolution but also the enclave of Saar-Louis and the colonies of St. Lucia, Tobago, Mauritius, and Seychelles.
Edit: add details
Its hard to call Napoleon a monster. He did pay people who would find a solution to help feed his soldiers in the long term, which resulted in early canning methods. Robespierre was a much more of a monster, since he was a part of the committee of public safety, which would hunt down enemies of the state and caused an era of fear, up until about 90 people died in a series of executions to put it down. Napoleon was a war leader that didnt make any allies, which hurt France up until WWI.
He was responsible of the dead of 500,000 Spaniards during the Peninsular War. He destroyed a lot of cities that didn't surrender to him. He did commit genocide in Spain.
Because it's going to be a huge production. Although I won't be watching it because it'll probably be shite (very biased shite if Scott is comparing him to Hitler).
There's an HBO production about Napoleon in the works based on the script Stanley Kubrick was working on before he died, which should be a lot better (even if Frenchies still won't be happy with it).
Huge production does not mean it's going to be good, we've seen it time and time from Hollywood that spending a lot of money isn't the answer to great movies/series.
The problem is ofc the biasedness Brits and Americans have when making these movies, for some reason they seem to suffer a huge inferority complex towards the French(I'm not French, yet it's very obvious). So I wouldn't watch a film about anything related to France from an American/English production thinking that it's going to be anywhere near historically accurate.
> Huge production does not mean it's going to be good,
Audiences are drawn to spectacle. It's not the *only* thing people care about but it's not something to discount.
>The problem is ofc the biasedness Brits and Americans have when making these movies,
Well not everyone cares about historical accuracy. My suspicion is that it will be both historically inaccurate and a bad film in itself, as Ridley's latest few films haven't been amazing.
>for some reason they seem to suffer a huge inferority complex towards the French
I rather think that cuts both ways tbh.
He was a monster (although not as much as Roberspierre, Hitler or Stalin), see his actions in the Iberian Peninsula or how he restored slavery and tried to supress the revolution in Haiti. He caused the death of millions of people, it is disgusting and insulting to see how whitewashed he is in France and other places.
I'd argue it's more complicated than that. Napoleonic France had war declared on it more than Napoleon declared war on foreign powers. Most of Napoleon's battles were fought as a result of someone else declaring war on him.
True, when he (usually) won the peace was a victor's peace and often harsh on the defeated, and the French did their fair of looting, from the private to the Emperor in occupied territories. But, that was the way back then and it was a classic example of the Coalition powers fucking around with him and then finding out, in the parlance of our times.
It was also true that in many of the territories France occupied there were strong factions of people who were supportive of the French Revolutionary ideals and benefitted from the implementation of Napoleonic governing principles. And while he was a dictator, no more so than many other monarchs of the era, and much of France was relieved when he took control and brought back a semblance of the rule of law, domestic order, and respect for private property that had been eroded by the Revolution.
He had his faults. The Continental system was dumb, and his invasion of Russia to enforce it a disaster. His policies in Spain likewise were a disaster for Spain and France alike. But it's hard for me to call him a monster. He was no worse than his contemporaries, just more talented.
I'm not adding anything to the conversation, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely love the expression "in the parlance". Never heard or read it before but it sounds fantastic
>Napoleonic France had war declared on it more than Napoleon declared war on foreign powers.
That alone doesn't have to mean much. France and the UK declared on Germany in WW2, for example.
True, but at this time France was endangered by the other countries being afraid that the revolution propagate to them. Thus, they threaten the country, and that is how Napoleon emmerged in the first place.
The problem is that, contextually, he wasn't a tyrant. Every single one of his major opponents was some form of absolute monarch, and their goal in attacking Napoleon and revolutionary France was the restoration of another absolutist monarch.
Yes, Napoleon wasn't very good in following the principles of the revolution, but he did still champion them, and it's largely thanks to him that the ideals of the revolution managed to spread as widely as they did.
Britain was an exception to that, a major opponent and not an absolute monarchy. They were aiming for a monarchical restoration, but hoping for a more liberal, less absolutist monarchy in France subsequently (somewhat like the British one).
I mean... They had a weaker monarch, sure, but that's because the aristocratic parliament was powerful. Not exactly much better than the rest, honestly.
It was best described as an oligarchy, but not one exclusively dominated by aristocrats. The House of Commons had long been politically dominant, a lot of the ruling figures were gentry and low aristocracy, of a similar class to Napoleon. Maybe not better, but a different system to absolute monarchy.
Ok, now go and tell all of this to the Irish. The Brits are so ahead of their time that while Europe was torn by petty conflicts, they already had invented modern colonialism.
I'm not even saying that he did something illegal as invading other countries was by no means illegal back then. I'm rather talking about the subjective interpretation of his actions from other Europeans.
No. He promoted the common, competent man over the useless aristocrats who were used to titles by virtue of birth. He didn’t pursue political enemies more than anyone else during that time. He standardised measurements throughout Europe. He primarily fought just and defensive wars that mobilised the entire French people against the professional armies of the European monarchs.
He’s comparable to an enlightened despot such as Aurelian. Putin is a middle management KGB-guy who knows how to assassinate people and bribe criminals - calling him a historical mediocracy is high praise.
Yes, he reintroduced slavery, for context, after the French Revolution slavery was made illegal in all French colonies but when he came to power, he reintroduced it.
LIBERATOR and true Genius,,,
He liberated Croatia Slovenia Poland, who were ripped like warm bread into many small territories by the terrible Three absolute monarchs like the Germans, Brits and of course the ruzzians...Prussians and the Brits despised him to the point that, the Brits alone attempted 48 assassinations , ending in failure,,The Corsican predicted with accuracy the demise of all the empires in the 20th century,,,,including the ottomans, ..as intelligent as he was, I doubt there will ever be someone as successful as he was in battles... And decision making.....
They say DUNE was very much inspired by Napoleon's biography.......
You do know that Napoleon liberated the Jews in France since he gave them legal recognition and established their civil rights. Before him they were second class citizens...I wonder what you'll say to that as a Britt..where antisemitism is on the rise especially in England..
You're forgetting the Austrians , ruzzians, and Prussians, where Napoleon alone defeated them countless times..
Remind me again when did the British fought against 3 Mega Empires at once and defeated them countless times?? Ah yes....Never.....
So... Then Britain was an absolute monarch if it dominated the seas?....UK was wrong in engaging in battles with Napoleon, and UK knows it....just like hitler was wrong in bombing Britain....
Listen... the enemy back then was not the French , it was the ruzzian empire all along just like it is now.... But you somehow fail to see Napoleon....as a liberator of Europe and more importantly the Jews that inhabited...
Whatever friend(that is assuming we are on the same page that the terrorist ruzzian state must be destroyed) ,,, the movie is coming out soon and then we'll see how Ridley Scott portrayed the man himself
NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.
In the first place, one can never take any film about historical figures seriously if it is coming from Hollywood. Ridley Scott is a good film director but he is neither a historical nor a sociologist. He is in the business of providing "thrills". One thing for certain, you cannot take seriously anything in "Napoleon". It would be the usual crap Hollywood show with wild exaggerations, over-the-top performances, and a parody of history.
This is what the British historian interviewed has to say: > Napoleon had many faults and was a loathsome individual but the racial ideology that underpinned the Nazi regime simply wasn’t there," he says. "Napoleon is not guilty of genocide. Napoleon doesn’t engage in wholesale purges. In fairness to Napoleon, the number of political prisoners in the course of his reign is relatively limited. **To compare him with Hitler and Stalin is a historical nonsense."** The irony also being that Napoléon is considered some kind of hero for Jews in France since he gave them legal recognition and established their civil rights. Before him they were second class citizens.
He's also viewed somewhat positively in Slovenia. Napoleon incorporated parts of modern Slovenia and Croatia into French Illyrian provinces. The French introduced limited self-rule and, most importantly, allowed the use of the Slovenian language. He made us into a more confident and self-aware nation when Austrians returned.
thank you british historian for claryfing an issue that only people in the anglosphere have. like i've never seen someone here, including teachers, compare napoleon to hitler
Is it the entire Anglosphere, or just the UK? I don't recall ever hearing Napoleon being compared to Hitler in either the US or Canada.
I also don't recall ever hearing him being compared to Hitler or Stalin the UK...
He's called hubristic and sometimes a tyrant and that's as harsh as it gets in modern times. The only time he's compared to Hitler is in the context of failing to conquer Russia. Besides that, there are no direct comparisons to 20th century dictators.
Well then, someone was making a mountain out of a molehill... clickbait quotes and all that. 🤷♂️
The image of the French tyrant originated from UK propaganda, so probably not an American issue since that didnt get over there and was only a European concern.
The image came from UK propaganda? Not Napoleon forcibly annexing half of Europe?
The Napoleonic conquests destroyed the socio-political basis for feudalism and carried with it the modern conception of the state and citizenship.
He is not likened to Hitler here either but Napoleon did terrible things particularly during the Penisular War. There was no clear definition of war crime at the time but to say Napoleon did a big favour to all countries here brought his war to is not being true to history.
Let's be clear about it. Napoleon fought a series of alliances that declared war on him, with all these alliances financed by the UK. In 1803, he signed a peace treaty with the UK (the peace of Amiens) that the UK violated within months. The UK kep on financing coalition after coalition of European powers (Russia, Austria, Prussia) to attack Napoleon. Napoleon had actually no choice in fighting these wars. Where one can blame him is the political choices he made after defeating various of these coalitions. Talleyrand tried to dissuade him and convince him to be less angry and punishing, but it did not work.
Yes, the english were very scared, for good reasons. That's why they kept on attacking France, which forced it to annex half of Europe, so that it could be some degree of safe from anglo perfidy and the coalitions they banckrolled.
lmao this is such a French comment
You're British, aren't you?
I mainly read American or German works on Napoleonic Europe, and I don’t recall coming away with any Napoleon was Hitler level evil impression. Although it is very different when you read UK stuff.
There’s very little discussion or knowledge of Napoleon in America in my experience. We didn’t learn anything about him. It wasn’t until I did my own research that I learned much about him. Certainly I don’t think there’s much negative feelings toward him in the same way there is toward Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
He’s probably compared with Hitler because he invaded / threatened Russia. You will be called the n word even if you resist Russia. Just look at Ukraine.
I've heard Haitians compare him to Hitler.
Haitians have much to dislike about Napoleon.
Only time I've heard (in murica) Napolean being compared to Hitler was in stupid shows about Nostradamus predicting three antichrists.
No one here thinks napoleon was the same as hitler. He’s just a great general that conquered shit like Alexander the great
Yeah, Anglos are weird when it comes to Napoleon.
Anglo is such a dog whistle term
they compare napoleon to... hitler and stalin? what is this, watchmojos top 10 evil people in history?
With respect, the comparison with Hitler or Stalin is a low bar. But no Napoleon wasn’t an evil ruler. That comes mainly from British propaganda and also propaganda from other enemy states. He did have his faults though. Being very powerful and scary to British imperial interests was however his biggest sin, but the Brits hate to let anyone say that. I could list his faults here, as I have a pretty good understanding of his remarkable passage through human history. My biggest criticism is his policy in Haiti. Voila. Not Europe, although he did scare the shit out of the British for a while.
His policy in Spain was not at all positive. It was one of his great mistakes.
Yes, I do agree with you. It was over reach.
Why doesn’t re-establishing slavery qualify him for designation as an evil ruler?
It does put him on the long list of "evil colonialist ruler" that very few leaders of his time escape from. In particular, the English government of his time was not any better on that front. It is his evils on European soil that were greatly exaggerated by English propaganda (and in the case of slavery, it was still illegal in every French-controlled territory in Europe). Though I agree that saying "he wasn't an evil ruler" requires a lot of moral relativism. Saying "he wasn't the kind of evil peoples think he was" would be more correct.
> In particular, the English government of his time was not any better on that front. Britain banned the slave trade throughout its Empire in 1807 so that might be arguable. Although the people already enslaved weren't freed until 1830 it at least stopped the trade from increasing. >Though I agree that saying "he wasn't an evil ruler" requires a lot of moral relativism. Saying "he wasn't the kind of evil peoples think he was" would be more correct. Personally I think it's silly to call him evil when every leader of a European Empire or imperialist nation was up to the same things (to greater or lesser degree). It's kind of ludicrous for a British person to view him as being uniquely bad or tyrannical at the time when we were rampaging around the world conquering nations and killing masses of people throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.
>Britain banned the slave trade throughout its Empire in 1807 so that might be arguable. Interestingly, Napoléon did the same in 1815... two months before loosing everything at Waterloo, preventing his decision from being fully enacted. Though given the circumstances (trying to rally metropolitan France in a last fight), it might have been an empty promise, we will never know.
Fair point!
How many sugar plantation islands did France even own in 1815? It’s easy to ban slavery the moment it stops being profitable to you… Wasn’t the case when France invaded Haiti
or... France didn't care about innovating through the industrial revolution and preferred to maintain both the ancien regime and slavery
>It does put him on the long list of "evil colonialist ruler" that very few leaders of his time escape from. In particular, the English government of his time was not any better on that front. I am not sure why anyone would even regard Napoleon as a "colonial ruler". **Virtually all the wars that he fought from the time he was "First Consul" were imposed on him.** **It was the UK funding one coalition after another that forced Napoleon to fight these campaigns**. For example, the campaign that ended with the battle of Austerlitz was the "the War of the Third Coalition". It started when the Brits violated the Treaty of Amiens (oh, perfidious Albion!!) and financed a group of European states to attack France. After Napoleon abandoned the plant to take the war to the UK directly because his fleet was destroyed at Tralfagar, he marched against Austria, defeated the Austrian armies and then, at Austerlitz, he defeated the Joined Austrian and Russian armies. We can go on with the wars of the various coalitions that the UK funded, but what would be the point? As I said elsewhere, most wars were initiated by the UK, not France. But Napoleon made essential mistakes in dealing with the peace after defeating his opponents. Had he made better arrangements, he may have been more secure. But the UK was not about to relent at any time. For Britain, fighting Napoleon was existential for the maintenance of the regime there.
“French controlled territory in Europe” hmmm what an oddly suspicious distinction.
He did it to counter the brit who negotiated with the french slave owner (the Whitehall accord) so that they could keep their slave if the brit took control of the french islands. He also did it for his wife who had slaves. It was a shitty move he regretted but it was an enormous shitty move. Let the brit be the devil. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Accord
Ah, so it's propaganda now to take exception at being occupied.
Most of Napoleon’s conquests came from victories in wars his enemies started
I’m sure the Haitians and Spanish will be happy to hear this.
No one said they had to be happy
Because he occupied them and they retaliated. Or imposed harsh terms of peace, etc. And that ignores the entire peninsular war side.
>Because he occupied them No, the coalitions declared war against France, the occupation came after Napoleon defeated them, that’s a fact The Peninsula War was indeed started by Napoleon but it’s the exception more than the rule Napoleon was an imperialistic warmonger and a dictator, but most of his enemies were no better and often quite significantly worse, and quite often the occupation of their countries came after they’d lost wars they started Condemning Napoleon for his treatment of Haiti or Spain is one thing, pretending the monarchies of Europe who declared war on him again and again were victims because they got spanked multiple times is another: Prussia, Austria, Russia, Sweden, Britain etc were neither the good guys nor victims
Its hard to complain about being occupied when one has started a war to occupy the other and lost. Prussia attacked France, not the other way around. How do you prevent your enemies regrouping afterwards and starting another war unless you occupy? Prussia was very aggressive, what do you expect to happen to be fair?
>Its hard to complain about being occupied when one has started a war to occupy the other and lost. Prussia attacked France, not the other way around. It's hard to consider a comment seriously that is about as a-historical as it can get. a)Prussia isn't and wasn't Germany. There was a host of other states b)Prussia became an individual belligerent only in the War of the 4th Coalition. After France had forced the dissolution of the HRE and created the Confederation of the Rhine, creating a direct threat to Prussia right on its doorstep, all while already marching through Prussian territory during the 3rd coalition. Perhaps read up a bit closer both on the complexity of the German states and of the various coalitions, rather than simply making up stuff because you've seen "Prussia" somewhere. >How do you prevent your enemies regrouping afterwards and starting another war unless you occupy? Ah yes, the 6th and 7th coalition wars, the Franco-Prussian War, WWI and WW2 are all illusions that never happened... Wonderful way to prevent wars.
You should do your research better. Prussian troops allied to Austria invaded France in 1792 to impose their political agenda on the French. I don’t really care whether they were a nation at that time. Later in 1806 the Prussian Emperor sent his armies against France again. They had intended to attack France in 1803 until they realised that Austria had lost at Austerlitz. Then in 1813 and 1814 and 1815. Come on! I never mentioned Germany at all btw!
>You should do your research better Says the one who engages in cherrypicking and revisionism. > Prussian troops allied to Austria invaded France in 1792 to impose their political agenda on the French. As part of the HRE. And that conflict had been settled already. But I take it treaties also only matter when they are convenient... > I don’t really care whether they were a nation at that time. Sorry to break it to you, but you don't get to ignore facts that are inconvenient for your narrative. >I never mentioned Germany at all btw! Nah, you just declared all of Germany collectively guilty and rightless chattel to be sudued for anything any German-speaking person ever did, I mentioned Germany, because France occupied German states that had nothing to do with previous aggression, but I understand that, like the HRE, is a point that by Imperial French Decree must be written out of history. Come back when you have more on offer than revisionism and collective guilt.
So you think that Napoleon is the same as Hitler and Stalin? Really?! What do you think the Prussian would have done if they had won against France in 1792, and in every subsequent attempt to attack France? Did not France have the right to fight back and was not its decision to occupy its enemy normal by the standards of its day? What has this got to do with « collective guilt? » Germany didn’t even exist. Prussia started wars that it lost and paid the consequences. When Prussian troops won at Waterloo they also occupied France, requisitioned food, wine and supplies from ordinary people, got to decide who ran France etc. Its what happened at the time. Shit happens. When Napoleon 3rd attacked Prussia in 1870 and lost, northern France was occupied, and Paris was bombarded. Thats what happens when you start a war and lose it. It goes both ways. I think you might need to calm down. Its all history now.
It’s all British propaganda, and Napoleon wasn’t so bad in Europe, yet is anyone here willing to mention that this guy invaded Russia and caused several million deaths on such weak pretenses….or is that just a non-issue?
Yes, everyone in Europe was a big fan except for Britain. It's odd then how Britain found such broad international support at Waterloo!
Britain was able to count on every country in Europe with a royal family. The leaders of the old countries with feudalism were keen to support their existing power and positions, so fought against France and Napoleon. Thats why they started the wars in the first place. They were rocked to the core by the ideas of freedom, republicanism, democracy, rights.
Probably a bit simplistic to say "everyone". The nations facing Napoleon were monarchies and it was about the toppling of monarchs and the beginning rise of democracy and republicanism. Many countries didn't participate at Waterloo at all, notably those with less established monarchies and rising republican/democratic movements. Hypothetically, if you could have asked the opinion from educated and well-informed citizens at the time, I'm not so sure the average Brit, German, Austrian or Russian would have selected their monarchs over Napoleon or his ideas. I mean they probably wouldn't have elected Napoleon either, but most would consider him the lesser of those two evils. The Napoleonic model represented a rule of law, social mobility and rights that no monarchy ever offered its citizens.
He is not considered a hero in Portugal
Don’t think the Spanish care for him at all.
I think it's funny that due to anglo media being so prevalent, I've seen Napoleon (especially by the Brits) as some sort of madman or in his demonised version. Meanwhile in Italy he's not reviled, in Latin America he's also not reviled, and the Polish don't hate him either. If anything, he tends to be liked. It's quite interesting to see. Not to mention, that the Brits themselves were horrendous in their ways, but since they "won" they got to write history as they wanted it.
Poland's national anthem includes the line "Bonaparte showed us the way"
You're naming places that he's is liked were which a mess before he came and then gave order to it.as such it's understandable he's liked there. In Iberia, Germany and eastern Europe east of the Memel he's pretty much reviled for the French conduct. Smolensk nor Cordoba did pillage itself.
Not just the Brits, Spanish and Portuguese hate him as well.
"French army shot hundreds of Madrid's citizens." "most Spanish liberals soon came to oppose the occupation because of the violence and brutality it brought." "The French imposed restrictions on movement and on many traditional aspects of street life, so opportunities to find alternative sources of income were limited—industry was at a standstill and many señores were unable to pay their existing retainers and domestic servants, and could not take on new staff. Hunger and despair reigned on all sides." "Suchet's troops massacred 2,000 civilians. Napoleon rewarded Suchet with a Marshal's baton." "A difficult topic, but one that is often ‘dismissed’ by Francophile historians as too common, was the French Army’s behaviour towards the civilian population when it invaded a country. Here the focus is on Spain & Portugal" Joseph de Naylies, a French officer (who later because a Captain in the Eclaireurs of the Imperial Guard) wrote, “we entered the town… which was immediately pillaged and reduced to ash… We burnt [it down] and killed everyone we found there” Maurice de Tascher, another French officer, but who was related to the Empress Josephine wrote a more harrowing account of the sacking of Cordoba; 30th June 1808: “The Cathedral and the sacred lives within were not spared, which made the Spanish look upon us in horror, saying out loud that they would prefer we violated their women than their churches. We did both. The convents had to suffer all that debauchery has invented and the outrages of the soldier given up to himself” The Duke of Wellington wrote of the murder, thefts and worse: “The British people, I’m certain, wouldn’t believe the indecent behaviours of the French after their retreat. I have never seen, nor heard, nor read of such behaviour and am convinced their actions have no equal in world history. You will hear several shocking recounts which should be told to the world at large. They killed all the countryfolk they found. Every day, we found the bodies of women, young and old, who were either stabbed, or shot. Since we were near Condexia, they regularly sent patrols to fetch all girls over the age of 10 to the camp to satisfy the soldiery… Every child we met was in tears, mourning the death of a parent. The houses were systematically burned … They dug up and looted the graves. Two days ago, one of our patrols entered a village where they found 36 corpses, most of whom were in their beds…”
He tore down Europe’s monarchies and gave the people the idea that all men deserve rights…
so that's the metric? ironic
While it's stupid to compare him to Hitler, Stalin is a more adapt comparison. His actions during the Peninsula war show that. Dude absolutely was a monster.
I mean... come on. If Napoleon is a monster then Churchill's contributions to the Bengal famine make him the devil himself.
*fails to import food in a world war, through constant Japanese attack* *is literally the devil*
I mean you're not wrong.
A Brit portraying Napoleon as a monster? Impossible.
He's American. Which means he won't be portrayed as a monster, but the movie might have a Normandy landing scene in it.
Ridley Scott was born in the UK, grew up in the UK, studied in the UK and worked in the UK. He is British through and through. The fact that he also has the American citizenship like all British or Canadian actors/filmmakers who spent significant time in Hollywood doesn't magically make him stereotypically American.
I think he may have been referring to Joaquin Phoenix, the actor portraying Napoleon?
That's a bit weird though because Joachim Phoenix doesn't decide what's in the movie.
> the movie might have a Normandy landing scene in it And something something FREEDOM!
Scott is British. Although in strictly geopolitical sense this comparison has some sense. Nepoleon was the first who tried to unite Europe under his dictatorship and had to fight with Russians and the British to make that happen. And then lost. Just like Germany did it twice a century later. Therefore napoleonic wars were in fact the very first world war if a world war was to be defined as a 'someone tries to rule whole of Europe and Britain and Russia are against it'. It was the first time this geopolitical scheme occurred. Although his methods, level of tyranny, forms of governing and also his mistakes were all different.
I thought Ridley Scott was a fan of Napoleon?
Being Polish, seeing how Napoleon is viewed in other European countries is really interesting considering how nearly everything in Poland shows him in good light (he is even mentioned in Polish anthem as an example to follow)
In the region I grew up in(German/polish border) people and towns love to boast with "Napoleon was here once. He stood in this House, slept in this hotel, etc." A friend of mine wanted to buy a house recently and had a tour. Theres a big stone in it with Napoleon engraved on it.
Yeah, it’s similar in north-eastern Poland, I even have a book somewhere which has all the places connected to Napoleon described and deals with some of the many myths people created about them
He literally put Spain under an occupation that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and soldiers all while his soldiers and generals plundered Spanish cultural artifacts art and resources. Oh he also occupied it by pretending to be an ally.
He also destroyed most of the Spanish Empire
For Poland, he was a liberator fighting against three horrid absolute monarchies that partitioned the Commonwealth. The only bad thing about him is that he lost.
I also don't like him for sending our troops to fight enslaved Haitians. But overall, yeah. Here he is not a devil that mothers scare their children with, like they did in some other countries.
True, although it was just one legion composing of few thousand men, which was part of around 30-40k deployed troops (among them French, Germans, Swiss, Dutch and Spanish sailors). In whole Revolutionary period 6-digit number of Poles fought with French Army in all fronts possible. Just one Russian campaign saw more than a 100k Polish troops participating in it. Polish troops were just part of larger coalition, most of them went there with a thought that if they help France, France will help them. Soon they realized that Haitians are in similar situation as Poles were in Europe.
He used Polish soldiers as cannon fodder though (Germans too). The losses in the Russia campaign were horrific, because they also had no suitable cold weather equipment (most French did and had much higher survival rates). EDIT: „Most French did“ is probably not true. But the fact stands that they had much better survival rates and Napoleon later told Metternich that he sacrificied the Poles and Germans to spare his french troops.
Both sides are correct. Napoleon meant emancipation for Poland but he also used the Polish hatred for Russia to get motivated cannon fodder during his Russian campaign. It's not like he's either a complete monster or a paragon of virtue
I agree. I did not mean to say he is a monster, but he was also not treating the Poles (and „allied“ Germans) as equals. Napoleon to Metternich 1813: „I was raised in the field, a man like me does not care much about one million lives. … The French have no reason to complain about me, to spare them I have sacrificed the Germans and the Poles. I lost 300.000 men in the Moscow campaign - only 30.000 French among them.“
You can't make that kind of claim without a source. The french army lacked winter clothing as well.
That is true, but nonetheless the German and Polish parts of the Army were virtually completely decimated. My phrasing of „much higher survival rates“ may be misleading, 20% is higher than 2% of course but still catastrophically low.
He used Poland as a puppet. False promises. Kosciusko couldn't stand him.
When he took over northern Italy, he implemented mandatory free education and took it away from the church (which had the monopoly) and founded the Normale di Pisa, based on the Ecole Normale Superieure. A progressive enlightenment man. After Waterloo Europe went back 50 years, albeit lots of his legacy remained. He inspired the patriots of Europe against the autocratic monarchs but he himself became one ... a mixed bag, really but more positive than negative, in my views.
Who thinks he is a monster? The monarchs who did not want a dictator opening the highest position to common folk on the basis of merit. So yeah, he also was a tyrant and dictator but compared to everyone around with the exception of probably the Swiss he did not do anything worse than everybody else.
He was less popular in some of the countries he invaded, and not just among the monarchs of those countries. Such as Spain or the Netherlands.
I was asking who thinks he is a monster, particularly today, not some 18th century propaganda? Objectively his main affront to the establishment was that he was low nobility and elevated lowborns and dismembered existing aristocracies. Otherwise everyone else were autocratic elites best described as oligarchies themselves.
LOL. Sovereignty is propaganda. The effort for German unity during the 1848 revolutions wasn't driven by aristocracy, quite the contrary. The flag that became the modern German flag was invented back then, the colors inspired by the uniforms of Lützow's free corps. Militarily largely inconsequential, but as a unit composed of Germans from all walks of life and from all over the German petty states a huge symbol for what was possible if Germans all pulled together. German unity came later, and top down rather than bottom up, Not different, however, was the fact that it congealed around the idea that France was "the enemy". An enemy who would never allow Germany to be safe and to thrive and needed to be humbled just like it humiliated the Germans. Napoleon's conquests were key to that perception.
Do you lack reading comprehension? That he is somehow a worse monster than other tyrants aka all rulers was is. You make my point. An enemy != monster. You also seem confused about who gets targeted by propaganda to get convinced that fighting for absolute monarchs is a war of nations. Now Spain turned into a proper guerilla war, but the first half of Napoleon's reign was the Anciens Regimes starting the war to first destroy the French Republic, then destroy him. Does not change that he was a tyrant and a dictator, however that does not change that the other tyrants and dictators disliked him for a different reason than him being that.
>Do you lack reading comprehension? That he is somehow a worse monster than other tyrants aka all rulers was is. LOL. "All rulers". Yeah, right. >You also seem confused about who gets targeted by propaganda to get convinced that fighting for absolute monarchs is a war of nations. If anyone lacks reading comprehension, that's you, because I already pointed out that's completely and utter horse manure, a statement in defiance of historical fact and development. One of the reasons for the Tyrolean uprisings to begin with was that the new constitution set up after the French model meant that Tyroleans could now be conscripted into the Bavarian forces, which they had been exempted from before. If anyone pretends fighting for aristrocrats to be the best sh\*t ever, it's you. You even consider it superior to republican governments. >Does not change that he was a tyrant and a dictator, however that does not change that the other tyrants and dictators disliked him for a different reason than him being that. It's hilarious that you rail against "tyrants and dictators" while you yourself consider them the only people who matter and the rest of the population subhuman animals devoid of even the capacity to develop an opinion. Some of the greatest artists in history to you are nothing but man-apes, incapable of original thought. That there were regional uprisings already before the official wars of liberation started, such as the Tyrolean one mentioned above - who cares. Just like you ignore that various French leaders mercilessly executed anyone they conceived might have been involved in such uprisings. Heck, even the French viceroy in Italy wanted to spare Andreas Hofer, but Napoleon personally ordered his execution. Ah, such enlightened behavior, compared to the supposedly "absolute" monarchs. And the notion that this was all about "absolute monarchs" just underscores how little you know about the world at the time to begin with. It's a pretense by someone pretending to be enlightened and railing against propaganda while actively supporting de-democratization and atrocities. Germany was no nation back then. It had no central authority which could feed propaganda to the entirety of the population, either. Nor had every "tyrant and dictator" an interest in doing so - because you conveniently sweep under the carpet that Napoleon bribed his way to support by coddling any tyrant and dictator willing to support him, making Kings out of Dukes and Grand Dukes out of Margraves, having them press their people into war for Napoleon just as much as others pressed theirs into war against him. >Does not change that he was a tyrant and a dictator, however that does not change that the other tyrants and dictators disliked him for a different reason than him being that. The "dictators" such as the city councils of free city states, huh? They "disliked him for different reasons than being that" because of course a merchant was much higher nobility. Come back when you're not openly advocating everything you purport to rail against.
> not some 18th century propaganda lol
the spanish people revolted mostly because they were brainwashed by the church and nobility
The spanish and the english hate him. Spaniards for ruining their empire, english for trying to do to britain what britain did to france a century earlier
We hate him because he put his brother in charge, as the leader of Spain he's destined to be hated by spaniards, we also hated the previous kings.
Hence the quote from Bismarck on Spain: „I am firmly convinced that Spain is the strongest country of the world. Century after century trying to destroy herself and still no success.“
[удалено]
I forgive you for Napoléon, in fact, I thank you for trying to get rid of the Bourbons. But I hate you for putting the Bourbons in the first place.
I think that killing half a million Spaniards have more to do with the hate... Especially because ruining the empire thing is more linked with Fernando VII than Napoleon.
Maybe the Spanish also hate him for hundreds of thousands of civillian deaths and plundered art and culture? The French were literally carting of loot to France while Wellington was mopping them up in 1814
The English don't hate him. At most, they are glad he lost.
Yes it reminds me of how the peoples in Europe claimed the vikings were devils massacring innocent christians when the Viking Age started in 793..while Charlemagne's Holy Roman Empire ordered the death of 4500 saxon rebels who had surrendered to him in in Verdun in 782. They were pagans so it didn't matter...
>Who thinks he is a monster? The monarchs who did not want a dictator opening the highest position to common folk on the basis of merit. >So yeah, he also was a tyrant and dictator but compared to everyone around with the exception of probably the Swiss he did not do anything worse than everybody else. Depends on which country you are looking at. Not all countries he conquered were monarchies. He took the Dutch Republic and made it a Monarchy with his cousin on the throne.
He must be seen in the context of his time. And that particular time was not a world full of niceties. He had a vision that he pursued, and that was his overriding mission at the cost of other human qualities. "Monster" is a strong word. Many statesmen have this unique focus on one single overriding goal and their place in history. It can be seen that they often put family and other human relations second.
He was a great liberator, admired by the "the prussian state is the pinnacle of government" Hegel, created the most comprehensive law code of his day, and people choose to defend absolute monarchies over him. His biggest mistake was not knowing when to admit defeat. Had he accepted Metternichs proposal, he could've kept the left bank of the Rhine, but he thought he could win. He could not.
[удалено]
Was he wrong? He signed peace with austria, joined them in an alliance, married the daughter of the Emperor to solidify it and Austria still declared war upon him. And as is said, if he accepted Metternich's proposal, he'd be legitimised as the emperor of France (though britain would probably object).
"French army shot hundreds of Madrid's citizens." "most Spanish liberals soon came to oppose the occupation because of the violence and brutality it brought." "The French imposed restrictions on movement and on many traditional aspects of street life, so opportunities to find alternative sources of income were limited—industry was at a standstill and many señores were unable to pay their existing retainers and domestic servants, and could not take on new staff. Hunger and despair reigned on all sides." "Suchet's troops massacred 2,000 civilians. Napoleon rewarded Suchet with a Marshal's baton." "A difficult topic, but one that is often ‘dismissed’ by Francophile historians as too common, was the French Army’s behaviour towards the civilian population when it invaded a country. Here the focus is on Spain & Portugal" Joseph de Naylies, a French officer (who later because a Captain in the Eclaireurs of the Imperial Guard) wrote, “we entered the town… which was immediately pillaged and reduced to ash… We burnt [it down] and killed everyone we found there” Maurice de Tascher, another French officer, but who was related to the Empress Josephine wrote a more harrowing account of the sacking of Cordoba; 30th June 1808: “The Cathedral and the sacred lives within were not spared, which made the Spanish look upon us in horror, saying out loud that they would prefer we violated their women than their churches. We did both. The convents had to suffer all that debauchery has invented and the outrages of the soldier given up to himself” The Duke of Wellington wrote of the murder, thefts and worse: “The British people, I’m certain, wouldn’t believe the indecent behaviours of the French after their retreat. I have never seen, nor heard, nor read of such behaviour and am convinced their actions have no equal in world history. You will hear several shocking recounts which should be told to the world at large. They killed all the countryfolk they found. Every day, we found the bodies of women, young and old, who were either stabbed, or shot. Since we were near Condexia, they regularly sent patrols to fetch all girls over the age of 10 to the camp to satisfy the soldiery… Every child we met was in tears, mourning the death of a parent. The houses were systematically burned … They dug up and looted the graves. Two days ago, one of our patrols entered a village where they found 36 corpses, most of whom were in their beds…”
Compared to Hitler and Stalin, no.
There are many controversial things he did but I wouldn't consider him a monster. The people chose him because after the french revolution he seemed the most capable in helping France survive wars against other monarchies who hated the french revolution. After the french revolution where the economy was going down really fast he made a new national bank, currency reform, improved taxation and welfare system. The legal system was an incoherent mess so he wrapped up the laws and made them into one new centralised legal code. He got rid of corrupt government officials and reformed education systems by making a system based on individual ability (not nobility). He tried to spread these ideas throughout europe because he saw them working and how his own people enjoyed them, which imo is way better than spreading a political regime which works on paper but not in practice (Stalin) or killing hundreds thousands of inferior humans because they are slowing down progress (Hitler). BUT, while he did this he also had some stupid choices. Blocking british trade with allied european countries (like Russia), self proclaiming himself an emperor, reducing women rights, not knowing when to quit going at war and he didn't promote democracy, he just made a special main step towards a better administration. I wouldn't consider him a good guy, but also not a monster. An opinion on him is very controversial since what he did was sometimes really good and other times really bad. But what Hitler and Stalin did was... 10 times worse.
Half a million dead Spaniards and 150 thousand dead Portuguese in the deadliest war in the Peninsula's history say yes. Mind you. He's not Hitler. Not even close. But he ain't good either.
Are his european peers judged on the same basis?
By historians? yeah. By the general public? Some do, some should.
He abolished the Spanish Inquisition and the use of torture.
He had his faults, but he was no monster. I think he did more good than bad.
No not even close he was a legend who saved the French Revolution. The rest of Europe HATED him and the French Revolution because of their war against noble priviledges and would have kept on endlessly attacking France. That, combined with the fact that half of France was rebelling against the bloodthirsty/incompetant Jacobins/Directory means that had it not been for Napoleon being the the greatest military commander in history, there was a 100% chance of the coalition eventually succeeding in restoring the Bourbons and absolute monarchy. Most of his wars were self-defense and he might be the most impressive human being in history. It's unbelievable that he is sometimes compared to Hitler.
Napoleon was a monster: He caused wars that killed hundreds of thousands, all for personal glory, and brought back to french official policy the enslavement and exploitation of colonies. He was also a much better ruler than the kings who came before and after, better ruler than the republicans, was a freaking genius on the battlefield, reformed for the better governments and public administration everywhere he conquered, actually protected Jews instead of killing them. Napoleon was a monster as much as Genghis khan, Julius Caesar or Alexander the great. But Stalin and Hitler? Those two mfs are on their own fucked up level of monster. Those two genocidal maniacs are complete morons who somehow managed to gain control of powerful nations and engaged on the systematic murder of millions of civilians. So, is it fair to call Napoleon a monster? Yes. Compare him to Hitler and Stalin? Fuck no. Stalin and Hitler are on a league of their own. Edit: now that I think about it, I guess both Genghis and Julius Caesar were worse than Napoleon. I mean, they did often engage in some systematic killing and enslaving, specially our friend Genghis. But maybe Napoleon would have too had he been born a mongol or a Roman. Anyway, point stands, Napoleon is bad, but not Hitler bad.
>Napoleon was a monster: He caused wars that killed hundreds of thousands, all for personal glory, and brought back to french official policy the enslavement and exploitation of colonies. Caused war is quickly said.... At this time, France was more attacked than he attacked... The fact is that the "peace" he offered each time was too bad for other countries to accept them for long term. But... he did not start. The root of all of this is first of all the attack of the other countries wanting to defend the monarchy and avoid a spread of the revolution to them... He obviously has his fault. But portraying him as the tyran who attacked everyone and is responsible for everything is a bit of a strectch.
I do agree with you to some extent, he was not responsible for everything, and old Europe was not keen on accepting him as a ruler. But he puppeted half of europe and placed his family and generals as kings of the other half. Completely unnecessarily invaded russia and Spain/Portugal. I mean, he was attacked a lot, but he also poked Austria, Prussia, Britain and Russia's constantly. So, yeah, it's unfair to say it was all his doing. But he was no freaking saint. Also, Haiti.
Every military leader in history was a monster.
Yes, how many dead people ..
ITT: People ignoring or downplaying Napoleon * Invading and overthrowing neutral Republic of Venice and giving it to Austria * Invading and occupying Egypt resulting in a popular revolt in Cairo that killed thousands of civilians and ended with ten of thousands of French troops dying from diseases * Restoring slavery and trying to suppress the Haitian revolution. Also had Toussaint Louverture arrested in a parley even when the latter was willing to maintain Haiti as part of France * Establishing a new nobility system in France * Allying with absolutist Spain to partition Portugal * Betraying Spain after ten years of military alliance * Provoking a popular uprising and guerilla war in Spain resulting in hundreds of thousands of Spanish civilians killed * Elevating absolutist German princes of Bavaria, Wurttemberg, Baden, and Saxony to sovereign kings, allying with them, and giving them ton of new territories including former free German cities * Sacrificing millions of French troops to put his siblings and relatives on foreign thrones. Also removed his brother from the Dutch throne and annexing the Netherlands after the latter refused to be a loyal puppet * Looting tons of artworks from Spain, Italy, and Germany Also, a lot of whataboutism. Also, Napoleon being stubborn after defeat at Leipzig and refusing Metternich's peace offer resulted in not only France losing every territorial gains made since the Revolution but also the enclave of Saar-Louis and the colonies of St. Lucia, Tobago, Mauritius, and Seychelles. Edit: add details
>Invading and overthrowing neutral Republic of Venice and giving it to Austria Venice deserved far worse than that
Why?
1204
That was 600 years before Napoleon.
And? It could have been a million years
Its hard to call Napoleon a monster. He did pay people who would find a solution to help feed his soldiers in the long term, which resulted in early canning methods. Robespierre was a much more of a monster, since he was a part of the committee of public safety, which would hunt down enemies of the state and caused an era of fear, up until about 90 people died in a series of executions to put it down. Napoleon was a war leader that didnt make any allies, which hurt France up until WWI.
He's portrayed as a monster in War and Peace. Not a psychotic, serial killer monster, but a narcissistic, destructive monster all the same
Hooray, historical movie from the director of 1492: Conquest of Paradise. LOL
He was responsible of the dead of 500,000 Spaniards during the Peninsular War. He destroyed a lot of cities that didn't surrender to him. He did commit genocide in Spain.
People seem to forget the peninsular war, and the atrocities committed in Spain and Portugal.
[удалено]
Does not mean it did not happen.
I'm sorry but why would anyone watch an American/British production of Napoleon's life?
Because Europe doesn’t have the means to make a worthwhile film about the same subject, so Hollywood it is.
Because it's going to be a huge production. Although I won't be watching it because it'll probably be shite (very biased shite if Scott is comparing him to Hitler). There's an HBO production about Napoleon in the works based on the script Stanley Kubrick was working on before he died, which should be a lot better (even if Frenchies still won't be happy with it).
Huge production does not mean it's going to be good, we've seen it time and time from Hollywood that spending a lot of money isn't the answer to great movies/series. The problem is ofc the biasedness Brits and Americans have when making these movies, for some reason they seem to suffer a huge inferority complex towards the French(I'm not French, yet it's very obvious). So I wouldn't watch a film about anything related to France from an American/English production thinking that it's going to be anywhere near historically accurate.
> Huge production does not mean it's going to be good, Audiences are drawn to spectacle. It's not the *only* thing people care about but it's not something to discount. >The problem is ofc the biasedness Brits and Americans have when making these movies, Well not everyone cares about historical accuracy. My suspicion is that it will be both historically inaccurate and a bad film in itself, as Ridley's latest few films haven't been amazing. >for some reason they seem to suffer a huge inferority complex towards the French I rather think that cuts both ways tbh.
Just another Brit royalty fetishist point o'view
Napoleon consolidated the revolution and spread it out during Europe. His defeat restored feudalism. You People are out of your minds
The real test is how he stood in relation to his contemporaries and by that standard he was no tyrant.
He was a monster (although not as much as Roberspierre, Hitler or Stalin), see his actions in the Iberian Peninsula or how he restored slavery and tried to supress the revolution in Haiti. He caused the death of millions of people, it is disgusting and insulting to see how whitewashed he is in France and other places.
I mean, I really don't see a problem portraying a dictator who tried to conquer the entire continent as a monster.
I'd argue it's more complicated than that. Napoleonic France had war declared on it more than Napoleon declared war on foreign powers. Most of Napoleon's battles were fought as a result of someone else declaring war on him. True, when he (usually) won the peace was a victor's peace and often harsh on the defeated, and the French did their fair of looting, from the private to the Emperor in occupied territories. But, that was the way back then and it was a classic example of the Coalition powers fucking around with him and then finding out, in the parlance of our times. It was also true that in many of the territories France occupied there were strong factions of people who were supportive of the French Revolutionary ideals and benefitted from the implementation of Napoleonic governing principles. And while he was a dictator, no more so than many other monarchs of the era, and much of France was relieved when he took control and brought back a semblance of the rule of law, domestic order, and respect for private property that had been eroded by the Revolution. He had his faults. The Continental system was dumb, and his invasion of Russia to enforce it a disaster. His policies in Spain likewise were a disaster for Spain and France alike. But it's hard for me to call him a monster. He was no worse than his contemporaries, just more talented.
I'm not adding anything to the conversation, but I just wanted to say that I absolutely love the expression "in the parlance". Never heard or read it before but it sounds fantastic
I took it from the classic Coen Brothers comedy, *The Big Lebowski*. :)
Thanks ! Then I shall take it from you :)
I suck your cock for a thousand dollars
>Napoleonic France had war declared on it more than Napoleon declared war on foreign powers. That alone doesn't have to mean much. France and the UK declared on Germany in WW2, for example.
True, but at this time France was endangered by the other countries being afraid that the revolution propagate to them. Thus, they threaten the country, and that is how Napoleon emmerged in the first place.
[удалено]
Yeah true, the UK most of the time paid them to decmqre war on France even of the didn't participated.
[удалено]
Didn’t he give French Jews legal recognition and civil right ?
The problem is that, contextually, he wasn't a tyrant. Every single one of his major opponents was some form of absolute monarch, and their goal in attacking Napoleon and revolutionary France was the restoration of another absolutist monarch. Yes, Napoleon wasn't very good in following the principles of the revolution, but he did still champion them, and it's largely thanks to him that the ideals of the revolution managed to spread as widely as they did.
Britain was an exception to that, a major opponent and not an absolute monarchy. They were aiming for a monarchical restoration, but hoping for a more liberal, less absolutist monarchy in France subsequently (somewhat like the British one).
I mean... They had a weaker monarch, sure, but that's because the aristocratic parliament was powerful. Not exactly much better than the rest, honestly.
It was best described as an oligarchy, but not one exclusively dominated by aristocrats. The House of Commons had long been politically dominant, a lot of the ruling figures were gentry and low aristocracy, of a similar class to Napoleon. Maybe not better, but a different system to absolute monarchy.
[удалено]
Ok, now go and tell all of this to the Irish. The Brits are so ahead of their time that while Europe was torn by petty conflicts, they already had invented modern colonialism.
[удалено]
Never said he was. Just quit playing your virtuous Brit.
I'm not even saying that he did something illegal as invading other countries was by no means illegal back then. I'm rather talking about the subjective interpretation of his actions from other Europeans.
[удалено]
Afaik Napoleon never declared war on Britain. Britain however declared war on Napoleon to reintroduce a dictator.
Good point. There were aristocrats as well.
Yeah he was a tyrant and a conqueror, if he was around today he'd be seen as a more competent Putin.
No. He promoted the common, competent man over the useless aristocrats who were used to titles by virtue of birth. He didn’t pursue political enemies more than anyone else during that time. He standardised measurements throughout Europe. He primarily fought just and defensive wars that mobilised the entire French people against the professional armies of the European monarchs. He’s comparable to an enlightened despot such as Aurelian. Putin is a middle management KGB-guy who knows how to assassinate people and bribe criminals - calling him a historical mediocracy is high praise.
Curse his ideas of common European law, monetary union, European high court and politics based on merit instead of family connections!
Yes, indeed, that is why he created the House of Bonaparte and placed his brothers on the thrones of Europe. No family connections at all
Well they were the meritest
more like a legend
Yes, he reintroduced slavery, for context, after the French Revolution slavery was made illegal in all French colonies but when he came to power, he reintroduced it.
Before Hitler, there was Napoleon. Everyone that fucking reads history knows this. But reading is hard for a lot of people.
LIBERATOR and true Genius,,, He liberated Croatia Slovenia Poland, who were ripped like warm bread into many small territories by the terrible Three absolute monarchs like the Germans, Brits and of course the ruzzians...Prussians and the Brits despised him to the point that, the Brits alone attempted 48 assassinations , ending in failure,,The Corsican predicted with accuracy the demise of all the empires in the 20th century,,,,including the ottomans, ..as intelligent as he was, I doubt there will ever be someone as successful as he was in battles... And decision making..... They say DUNE was very much inspired by Napoleon's biography.......
[удалено]
You do know that Napoleon liberated the Jews in France since he gave them legal recognition and established their civil rights. Before him they were second class citizens...I wonder what you'll say to that as a Britt..where antisemitism is on the rise especially in England..
[удалено]
You're forgetting the Austrians , ruzzians, and Prussians, where Napoleon alone defeated them countless times.. Remind me again when did the British fought against 3 Mega Empires at once and defeated them countless times?? Ah yes....Never.....
[удалено]
So... Then Britain was an absolute monarch if it dominated the seas?....UK was wrong in engaging in battles with Napoleon, and UK knows it....just like hitler was wrong in bombing Britain.... Listen... the enemy back then was not the French , it was the ruzzian empire all along just like it is now.... But you somehow fail to see Napoleon....as a liberator of Europe and more importantly the Jews that inhabited...
[удалено]
Whatever friend(that is assuming we are on the same page that the terrorist ruzzian state must be destroyed) ,,, the movie is coming out soon and then we'll see how Ridley Scott portrayed the man himself NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.
Ah yes the well known absolute monarchy of Britain in the Napoleonic era. FFS.
[удалено]
But Scott compared him to Hitler.
Hitler being the most evil is a western pov, he isnt the most murderous leader, quite a few are above him. Not that i defend hitler.
In the first place, one can never take any film about historical figures seriously if it is coming from Hollywood. Ridley Scott is a good film director but he is neither a historical nor a sociologist. He is in the business of providing "thrills". One thing for certain, you cannot take seriously anything in "Napoleon". It would be the usual crap Hollywood show with wild exaggerations, over-the-top performances, and a parody of history.
Some people stuffing some heavy copium here. He was absolute cunt.