What do you think of Napoleon?
>>1063845
I think France is a pretty cool guy. Eh kills coalitionsits and doesnt afraid of anything.
>>1063845
Literally saved Europe from another century of stagnation and absolutism.
greetings from waterloo ;)
>>1063851
by becoming a monarch and stagnating European development through constant wars
He was an Italian warmonger
>>1063879
His ideas, legal codes and government structure advanced Europe ten fold, though. Modern police forces in Europe were founded thanks to him.
>>1063892
>Warmonger
I've heard this case before but wasn't Napoleon just defending his nation from invaders who didn't like what happened to France?
>>1063879
War is conducive to destruction of the old
>>1063845
Great military leader but anti-christ tier statesman.
>>1063898
Every roman war was framed as a defensive one. There's nothing to indicate that Napoleon disliked his conquests.
Though really, nothing wrong with a bit of war, if it results in a better europe
>>1063916
The difference is Rome used self defense as a justification to declared war. Every single one of the coalition wars however was started by Britain.
>>1063993
It's not as if Napoleon was doing anything to make himself agreeable to the coalition powers. Having them attack was a good thing, like how Bismarck played the french.
It's not a bad thing, it's quite impressive.
>>1063993
The First was started by the Hasburgs, Britian only joined because they didn't want to seem like a rogue state
>>1063898
His invasion of Russia was pretty imperialistic, it was all over the fact they wouldn't stop trading with the British that they had every right to do.
The poster boy for great-man history. Only once every 1000 years does there arise a man like Napoleon, and man did he rise. Nobody can deny that his life reads like a storybook. Petty nobility of interior mountains of shitty island that has never had sovereignty. Becomes educated, leaves behind the idea of his corsican nationality, decides if being French is good enough for him it's good enough for evryone else. Goes to military school and becomes what amounts to a tank commander at the time (artillery, but still). Bants the fuck of of the itis and prussians and returns home a hero, essentially being written into law as a dictator via the consulate plebiscite. He continues to blow people up on the battlefield with his new high tech cannisters.
Then he fucking invaded Egypt. Why? Because.
Because every good empire needs an egypt, so he thinks. Rome, Byzzies, mudslimes, etc. He does it under the guise of disrupting British trade but partially he was motivated by glory. Taking the gem of the Mediterranean, he puts himself alongside Alexander. He crowns himself emperor after a massive propaganda effort. He does his best to emulate charlemagne.
Then he tries to invade Russia in the winter.
Can you blame the dude? We only know it can't be done because him and one other guy have tried it. Why shouldn't he think he can spank a bunch of backwater serfs? He's been in the zone for like 4 decades
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI
Great debate on Napoleon.
>>1063845
He certainly existed.
>>1064117
First guy makes some good points. Second guy can't get past ad hominem.
"Durr, an 18 year old pre-mass media has no game, this is relevant"
>>1064110
>Can you blame the dude?
When he lost,he lost big
In both cases (Egypt,Russia)he ran out on his army, left them in the lurch and ran for Paris.
I am amazed people think so highly of him as a general.
I don't.
