Was he a power hungry emperor? Was he a righteous man spreading enlightenment values across Europe?
What is your opinion on Napoleon?
>>448692
Waged a war of justice against the eternal anglo and the archaic ideas of monarchy.
I think Ney should get more of the fame, however.
>>448692
He was a righteous power hungry emperor spreading enlightenment values across Europe
>>448709
This. It's true he was a dictator, but he actually made some pretty great decisions (Lyceés or the Napoleonic Code, for example).
CODE NAPOLÉON
O
D
E
N
A
P
O
L
É
O
N
ENDED THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE AND GAVE BIRTH TO EUROPE AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT PRAY TO THIS HOLY CREATURE NEEDS TO MOVE TO NORTH KOREA SO YOU CAN LIVE IN A PEACEFUL ENLIGHTENED PLACE FREE OF NAPOLEONS iNFLUENCE.
>>448692
>Ney
He founded modern Switzerland.
>>448725
Also people emphasize on the dictator term because it has a very negative meaning these day, but he was better than most of "regular" monarchs of his era.
A dictator simply means someone who took power from a republic instead of being born with it
It doesnt necessarily makes one more tyrannical than your average king
This man was based enough to be venerated in Poland until 1880s
>>448744
SUCE MA GRAINE MANGEUR DE MERDE ET ENCULEUR DE BREBIS!
>>448692
He was just a little man (in height and penis size) who was angry at women.
>>448692
Okay, just clone him.
>>448802
>eternals anglos
topcucks
Read Benjamin Constant's pamphlet about him. It's a fun and easy read and tells you everything you need to know about his political basis.
>>448709
The correct answer.
>>448692
He kicked Europe out of the last vestiges of the Middle Ages and those who defeated him set the stage for World War I.
I'd say he's a pretty interesting guy.
>>448692
The hero Europe needed, but did not deserve. Imagine the world we could be living in today where it not for perfidity of a certain island nation.
Napoleon is why Europe has the metric system, constitutions, and civil code law.
He even established factories to make table sugar from beets. So Europeans could have sugar with out having to buy from the British.
>>448975
Embargos can do wonders to national economies, sometimes.
The Kingdom of Westphalia was a mistake.
>>448697
>archaic idea of monarchy
>crowned himself emperor
>made his relatives literal kings
Republicans confirmed for delusional.
>>449145
>>made his relatives literal kings
That was le point.
He took a giant shit on traditional institutions by emulating and mocking them.
>>448975
Thank god Europeans can buy sugar from Europeans so that they don't have to buy it from other Europeans. Truly, Napoleon is a European hero.
>>449155
>he was only making them kings ironically!
Jesus Christ I hope you don't actually believe this. He was a hero because he moved France away from republican savagery and directed that fervor at making her the world power.
>>449167
Yes. But he didn't do that by reestablishing the monarchy, or any traditional institution for that matter. The empire was a pastiche of other political models, republican, monarchical and imperial. It was, in this particular sense, indeed an ironic empire.
>>449177
He brought a happy medium between the Republicans and conservatism. It was in all senses of the word a monarchy, he even established hereditary succession for his son. He believes he was the rightful emperor. There's no irony in it. He was just a usurper that brought about something great.
>>449155
>by emulating and mocking them
haha, okay, whatever you say.
>>449187
A monarch has to be crowned by the grace of god or some kind of divine or natural law. He openly mocked and attacked this principle in the setting of his coronation in Paris. His aesthetics were a mixture of traditional themes taken from classical, Carolingian and Bourbon symbols. Any half-educated person back in the day could have understood easily what he was doing
>>449230
He did it the same way as them so he could try to establish some legitimacy, the same way any usurper would have done.
>>449251
Of course, but that is not to say he was a monarch in the strict sense.
>>449274
In what way was he not?
>>449359
In what way he was?
Single person in the head of a state=\=monarchy.
His rule was not sanctioned by tradition, was not hereditary (losing a war doesn't annul succession lines usually), was not reliant on the same social institutions, etc.
>>449393
It was hereditary; the first monarch of a dynasty is still a monarch.
>>449411
By what right his son would have become emperor of France? He didn't stand at a head of a church like in Russia, or was elected by another body like in Germany. Napoleon's claim was basically might makes right, which by itself doesn't entitle your children to anything.
>>448692
No shit he was power hungry, he himself said that.
However, I do love Napoleon and wish he would have succeeded in creating a French Empire across all of Europe. Fuck the Anglos.
>>449444
He designated his son as a hereditary successor. And "might makes right" is essentially how all fledgling nobility starts.
>>449465
>He designated his son as a hereditary successor
Again, by what right?
>>449163
Made sugar cheaper. Sugar was fucking expensive back then. It had to be grown in the sub tropical new world with slaves. Then shipped to europe.
>>448975
So we have him to thank for obesity in Germany?
T-thanks Napoleon!
>>449459
>However, I do love Napoleon and wish he would have succeeded in creating a French Empire across all of Europe
Why?
>>448692
>Was he a power hungry emperor?
Obviously this is a difficult question to answer. He was power hungry but he had his limits. He defeated Austria when threatened and as such took the spoils of war. He held down uprisings and appointed his siblings ( i.e. Joseph and Eugene) as well as his generals (Bernadotte and Murat) leaders of conquered (not always through war) states and countries, for the obvious purpose of serving to his interests. He also placed heavy restrictions on the media and knew how and when propaganda could be used to great effectiveness
>Was he a righteous man spreading enlightenment values across Europe?
Almost certainly. As I'm sure you know the Code Napoleon is still the basis of laws and liberty to this day. Though his ideas seem dated to us they were 100 times as equality based as anything the Bourbons had to offer. He was very fair to the citizens of France and to his captured [European] enemies. The obvious exception is the Siege of Jaffa and the Slave Rebellions in Haiti.
Say what you will he was a great and terrific man
>>450110
I intended to add to that first paragraph but forgot:
Although he was power hungry he signed many peace treaties, some more successful than others. The Amiens (which broke down almost immediately), The Confederation of The Rhine as well as Tilsit are all notable examples. When the latter was broken by Russia, he sent numerous letters to Tsar Alexander in attempts to avoid the coming conflict (which he won, taking Moscow before enacting a retreat that can only be described as disastrous).
There are also numerous examples of him, with different degrees of want, attempting to negotiate with Britain for further peace treaties after the collapse of the Amiens.
>>450110
How did he treat his non Muslims enemies?
>>450646
Well obviously he killed those who were actively waging war against him. Those captured after surrender were sent to work in France, mainly in Paris. The only [inexcusable] time he was seen to massacre a surrendered force was a Jaffa, an obvious war crime.
>During the 17th and 18th centuries, prisoners of war were generally treated with respect and compassion, largely due to the fact that military forces were primarily professional in nature. There was little animosity between opposing soldiers, and therefore little reason to mistreat those soldiers who had the misfortune to become your prisoner. Indeed, during most of the 18th century, prisoners of war were soon exchanged and sent back to their homeland. This exchange, called the cartel system, was based on precise monetary rates, with each class of prisoner being worth a certain amount of money. Each side was careful to see that there was a proper accounting of the value of their prisoners.
- http://www.napoleonicsociety.com/english/pdf/j5markham.pdf
>>450760
>mainly in Paris
Opps, meant to type "mainly in Farms"
>>450760
The men he executed at Jaffa were the very same who had sworn they would never fight under Jezzar again
>What is your opinion on Napoleon?
Understandably put alongside Hitler as the last real manifestations of proud empires in Europe.
Clearly not a real criminal unlike Hitler, but if you're going to be principally opposed to Hitler's character and sentiments, you should really reconsider any pride for Napoleon.
He's a deservedly compelling historical figure, so I like his narrative quite a bit.
>>451487
Yes I know, in that sense it's justified. But he still killed 3000 unarmed men
>>451583
But not before they had attempted to stop him from taking the fort.
Btw are you reading Napoleon: A Life too?
>>448692
Napolean was a boss. He gave the middle class stability and appeased the poor. He pissed off nobles and expanded France post 2nd revolution. He grew up and was rejected by French society. When he had his chance at helping France and being included he wanted the best for France and wanted glory. He achieved it.
>>451603
>Btw are you reading Napoleon: A Life too?
ayyy, Just finished it, brilliant book
>>451622
How can you have stability with constant wars?
Not saying he was bad, it's just a weird point to emphasize.
>>449155
>One of the biggest sources of nepotism in history
>Literally textbook examples of all the problems with monarchy
Don't get me wrong I love Napoleon but it is delusional to think he wasn't power hungry.
>>452055
From what I gather most of the wars he was fighting were defensive in nature.
Daily reminder that Napoleon did nothing wrong
>>452966
He lost
>got btfo by russians
>got btfo by brits
>france's greatest war hero
>>448692
Massive faggot; died a failure. The eternal Anglo always wins, lads.
>>454205
>France's greatest military achievments of the past 500 years were accomplished by an Italian who ended up losing
Mein sides
>>454245
Don't forget the little girl that got set on fire for wearing pants.
>>448692
He was a power hungry, glory hunting tyrant that razed down outdated institutions and replaced them with modern national policy so good it survived his rule and resisted all reactionary attempts at removing it.
>>454251
>relying on women and wops for martial glory
Where did it all go so wrong?
>>454245
>The world's greatest military achievments of the past 800 years were accomplished by an Italian fighting for France who ended up losing
FTFY
ROTW are you even trying?
>>454287
>The world's greatest military achievments of the past 800 years were accomplished by an Italian fighting for France who ended up losing
>The world's greatest military achievments
>people actually believe this
>>454302
Name a greater achievement than the napoleonic empire since fucking Temujin unleashed Subutai on Eurasia.
>>454317
Well, I'll just stick to the parameters of in a losing effort. Hitler was able to rebuild the German economy and military from scratch in 7 years, and conquered basically the entirety of mainland Europe+Scandinavia and North Africa in about 3.
>>454339
Napoleon conquered the same extent of land as Hitler, plus Spain and Italy, while having more enemies, and holding out 4 times longer. Not even close to being close.
>>454355
And yet from a logistics standpoint the napoleonic armies were nothing compared to the later german armies of WWI and WWII. Certainly a reference to the numbers involved is also relevant?
>>454355
Hitler didn't have to conquer Spain, since Franco was there. Napoleon didn't have to contend with the military might of an industrial America and got to fight backwards tsarist Russia instead of the USSR. I'm mostly just here to troll Napoleonfags though. No doubt he was a brilliant general. Greatest military achievements of the last 800 years is definitely a stretch though.
>>454367
>Certainly a reference to the numbers involved is also relevant?
It most certainly isn't, because logistics in general are extremely dependent on technology, and you need to acknowledge that Napoleon fielded in proportion USSR sized armies with Germany tier equipment.
>>454391
>Hitler didn't have to conquer Spain, since Franco was there.
Irrelevant, it's still a military achievement he didn't have.
>Napoleon didn't have to contend with the military might of an industrial America and got to fight backwards tsarist Russia instead of the USSR.
The USSR back then was still a zerg rush military, it's not like there was such a big difference, and Napoleon also had to face Prussia and Austria, empires capable of fielding armies as big and well equipped as his own, and he also didn't have an ally like Japan sucking resources out of his enemies. Honestly I'm not seeing the difference in fighting potential, yet Napoleon conquered more and lasted much longer.
absolutely based desu. got too power hungry though.
>>454339
Even if the military achievements of Nazi Germany were anywhere near as impressive as Napoleonic France, Hitler still doesn't take credit for it. He wasn't out in the field commanding his troops himself like Napoleon was.
>>454367
The Napoleonic armies literally invented modern logistics and military statistics, WWII armies only crunched numbers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=671VsVTBskY
"Feindre d’ignorer ce qu’on sait, de savoir tout ce qu’on ignore, d’entendre ce qu’on ne comprend pas, de ne point ouïr ce qu’on entend ; surtout de pouvoir au-delà de ses forces ; avoir souvent pour grand secret de cacher qu’il n’y en a point ; s’enfermer pour tailler des plumes et paraître profond, quand on n’est, comme on dit, que vide et creux ; jouer bien ou mal un personnage ; répandre des espions et pensionner des traîtres ; amollir des cachets ; intercepter des lettres ; et tâcher d’ennoblir la pauvreté des moyens par l’importance des objets : voilà toute la politique ou je meure !"
Napoleon
>saved Corsica from Italy
>created Germany
>advanced linguistics and anthropology tenfold with Egypt excursion
>secured the survival of the European middle class and defense complex
>secured the European art tradition through patronage and public support
>political troll
>kinky wife
>bioengineered cajuns with some territory as a gift to the United States
>became the first God Emperor from lesser nobility
>>455336
>kinky wife
In what way? I'm not aware of this.
>>455377
read their letters
>>455384
Example or link?
>>455400
its better in its original text and language
also Napoleon's wife was the first distinctly mixed race Empress
How was the French army able to BTFO Europe so hard? Especially during the early Revolutionary wars?
>>455445
France was basically the first place in Europe where cultural caste systems started to break down and reform almost overnight
with the chaos that ensues you have a bunch of hungry unemployed poor people who used to have to fight religious wars with crappy local weapons
now the republic comes to you with a shitton of modern uniforms and arms and a state religion backed by some of the most awe inspiring literature, arts, and civics of all time, then led by a dude who used to be unrecognized by any known power now seen as geist incarnate reigniting classic republicanism from traditions and conflict over a thousand years old
>>455445
Levee en Masse, good generaling, and a strong military tradition.
France was never the underdog, it was Europe's premier fighting force before, during, and after the revolutionary wars.
>>455492
>France was never the underdog, it was Europe's premier fighting force before, during, and after the revolutionary wars.
France wasn't "France" before the revolution, much less those few hundred years it doesn't like to talk about before it
>>449483
Might, of course. :^)
>>455529
It's national identity was forever changed by the revolution, yes, but it's military traditions and standard of excellence have its roots with Louis XIV and before.
How can a man who spent 30,000 human lives a month in a military campaign to conquer and usurp the territories of the civilised world to suit his own greed be considered 'for the people'.
He didn't dispose of the aristocratic oppression in french society, he became it.
>>455548
>standard of excellence
one wonders where those are now
>>455548
don't forget that the army was not the most pro republican at this time, with all the nobles on it.
Add to that all the shit that went down inside the country, La Terreur and shit, and the whole monarchic europe (+eternal anglo, obviously) that declared war against the young republic day one, and it's not a small feat to it even surviving, and even more going all empire mode.
>>455554
if you wanna make crepes you got to break some eggs
>>455563
Napoleon as he aged seemed a lot less the fiery republican youth. He matured into something great.
>>454435
>The USSR back then was still a zerg rush military
> it's not like there was such a big difference
Just don't say anything if you don't know what you're talking about.
> and Napoleon also had to face Prussia and Austria, empires capable of fielding armies as big and well equipped as his own
Prussia's military was completely stagnant at this point, actually.
>and he also didn't have an ally like Japan sucking resources out of his enemies.
Instead he had a modern war with railways, combined arms, and was sucked out of the resources to fuel that. Having Japan as an ally in WWII isn't some big plus, again just don't say anything if you don't really know.
>Honestly I'm not seeing the difference in fighting potential, yet Napoleon conquered more and lasted much longer.
It's literally over a century later after the greatest military revolutions in history, there is a historical and technological gulf between the two practically, and considering WWI, the German conquests to the end of 1941 was the most rapid conquest of most of Europe in human history.
Your downplaying of it is retarded and shows you really know nothing about it.
Don't get me wrong, what Napoleon achieved is incredible and impressive, but the militaristic comparison is fucking apples and oranges, linear warfare and actually modern combat, with entirely different contexts for both styles.
He was The Great Man of his era; anyone who disputes this is simply being obtuse.
As far as comparing Napoleons and Alexanders and Genghises, it's fairly pointless. They were all remarkable in and for their own times, but it would make no sense to hold Julius Caesar accountable to the times and trials of Charlemagne or vice versa.
>>455609
>The Great Man of his era; anyone who disputes this is simply being obtuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Beaumarchais
The only reason people could talk badly of Napoleon is because of the propaganda made against him by other euro countries or his fuck up in Egypt, cause that actually was pretty dumb.
>let's start a series of wars against every other great power
>what could possibly go wrong?
>>456091
Ehh, I'm not one for circlejerking about the genius of Napoleon, but as soon as they overthrew the monarchy they were going to have to fight with all of the monarchist powers of Europe. Radical republicans in a major European power wasn't going to be tolerated by the old powers. It was a threat to stability.
>>449483
wow you are fucking stupid
>>448802
>He was just a little man (in height and penis size) who was angry at women.
Not this meme again
>>449128
Rarely. Especially in this day and age.
>>449230
Do you think the first monarchs actually gave a fuck about the divine right of kings?
>>449444
>Napoleon's claim was basically might makes right, which by itself doesn't entitle your children to anything.
But it's the only thing that entitles anyone to anything ever.
>>448692
Manlet
