was he good or bad?
>>49337
For America he was good.
Literally 19th century French Hitler.
>>49337
For France he was good.
>>49337
>good or bad
Value judgement, not history.
he caused my ancestors to flee across the ocean so i could eventually be born in america and not europe
bretty cool in my books
>>49337
For German unification and nationalism he was good
>>49443
History and humanities senpai
>>49337
Pretty good. His legal reforms are a masterpiece.
He was alright.
>>49396
Except Napoleon didn't commit genocide and a large number of the Napoleonic Wars were not actually started by Napoleon.
>>49337
but the important question is... was he short?
>>49580
No
>>49580
He was below manlet cut-off at 5'6
>>49396
>>49337
His story is one of the most inspiring in the history of the world.
He came from nothing and rose so high. He made it farther than any of his countrymen since Charles the Fat, who was only arguably his countryman. He made the emperors of other empires fall to their knees. All this from nothing.
And then, he failed. He rose so high, and then fell so far. He failed so miserably that he tried to kill himself, but failed at that as well. He was led, in failure and shame, from his country and his countrymen. He was exiled, put on an island across the sea, and ridiculed. But he never stopped looking across the sea to his country.
Then, the most amazing thing in all of history took place. This man, who had risen from nothing to everything, and fell so hard that he was done with life itself, came back. He got in a fucking rowboat and rowed his ass back to the country that he loved, only to be made its emperor again, and only to spit in the face of the fucking world once more.
Even though he did fail again, it is still one of the greatest stories of redemption in human history. Regardless of nationality or his politics, this alone is what makes him one of the greatest men in history.
>>49337
He was
Napoopan
>>49670
He was a fucking noble, nigger. A minor noble, but still, that's not "nothing" in 18th century France.
>>49670
Fuck yeah. Came here to say this.
>>49697
Was his waifu kuroneko too?
>>49396
How many Australians did he genocide?
>>49715
Foreign noble, his father fought against the French army in a Corsican nationalist revolt. He was originally a Corsican nationalist himself.
>>49670
This.
Truly Waterloo was the good guy losing, and we've been living in Hell ever since.
>>49775
He considered Waterloo a victory. He expected to get wrecked harder.
>>49715
Only his family name was semi-noble, and his father only took a peripheral role in the Corsican revolutionary government that got rekt by the French. His family name wasn't even that noble, it was a very obscure name from Tuscany that came from an even more obscure name from Lombardy. And, being Italian, it had little to do with the French and literally meant jack shit about getting him anywhere. Not that Napoleon himself was trying to use his name for anything, however, he originally wanted to be a historian. He would probably post here if he were alive.
>>49884
Did he not change his surname to a more French spelling to avoid discrimination as well?
>>49756
I'm pretty sure his father became a noble under the French, not prior to. His father supported Paoli, but only so long as Paoli looked like he could win. After that it was sucking up to the French governor and trying to get his sons into some of the most prestigious military academies in France--and that's what he did. And that's why Napoleon can't be said to come from nothing, because he was a noble who went to a top academy. He was downright privileged. The best that could be said about him--and it's valid to say it--is that he was less privileged than pretty much everyone else around him, and he rose higher than anyone of his rank ever had before.
But that's still not coming from nowhere.
the best border porn
Question: What held his empire together? Surely not just military control?
>>49911
That's what I heard, but I don't remember reading that from any super credible source, so I don't know.
>>49337
He destroyed Noble Republic of Dubrovnik and Peasant Republic of Poljica. Rest of his doing is mostly good.
>>49989
Local rulers. He installed his brothers in many of the other states of Europe and tended to act as a liberator, so for instance if there was an oppressed group (such as the Poles) he would side with them gaining a loyal ally.
>>49337
Ultimately bad for France, at least in terms of his accomplishments. It doesn't matter what you build if you get yourself curbstomped.
>>49989
He had a massive interior police and intelligence network which kept track of subversives and rounded up those that were dangerous. He also heavily censored the press, and of course there was the threat of military intervention either from the French armies themselves or from French allies.
Moreover, you must remember the Republic's policies were more than a little fucked. Napoleon's maneuvering--his reworking of the legal code, his reintroduction of Catholicism to France--placated enemies and gained him even more widespread popularity. Resistance against him was initially minimal, because he was seen as the lesser of many other evils. By the time the constant warfare and repression had gotten to people, he was too tightly in control to easily rally against.
>>49443
He's not writing his thesis faggot.
>>49552
Neither did Hitler.
>>49670
Fucking this
>>50493
I'll leave that debate to someone who cares.
>>49337
yes
>>49337
Opened public schooling
Not a bad guy at all.
Marched to Moscow on a Winter
Not pretty smart
>>50493
>When this is true
But hey, he did commit homocide on himself.
>>49580
No he wasn't. It's literally just people falling for two century old British propaganda, which is actually pretty funny.
>>50854
>Marched to Moscow on a Winter
Not really
He started his invasion in summer but the Russian army kept retreating while destroying their own city instead of fighting him
When they arrived near Moscow, the Russians finally decided to fight but got rekt and burned Moscow before retreating even further
Napoleon knew he couldn't chase them forever so he settled in Moscow for a few months hoping the Russians would surrender, but they didn't
Threatned by starvation, Napoleon was forced to start living Russia at the beginning of winter, and as he had waited a bit too long, winter and starvation combined decimated his army on the way back
>>50983
British propaganda almost got The US into a war with Germany and Mexico so....
>>49337
Whether he was bad or good, I do not think it can be argued that he was great.
>>49337
He's definitely demonized to a ridiculous extent, can't say much else.
>>51022
Do not forget the constant assaults from Russian Cossacks as the army retreated.
>>49396
Is literally anyone who is a strong leader and a nationalist Hitler to you?
Next you will say hurr durr he had a huge legal code that must mean he is a 19th century French Justinian.
>>49715
>He was a noble
A void title because he was from Corsica and also because the French revolution made being nobility a hinder to advancement.
>>50142
>bad for France
Not at all. His legal reforms, spread of revolution ideas, and military innovation was a benefit for all of Europe.
>curbstomped
A simplistic and asinine word to describe his eventual defeat.
>>50176
This explanation seems to disregard the man's immense popularity in France at the time. Censorship and Government control was far more lax than in any other European country.
Napoleon III won the presidential election of 1848 because the French loved Napoleon so much, his name alone inspired immense patriotism.
>>51788
>A void title because he was from Corsica and also because the French revolution made being nobility a hinder to advancement.
That's an imbecilic argument. Yes, the Revolution made nobility a hindrance to advancement, but Napoleon would have gotten no education and become nothing at all had he not had the nobility in the first place. It hurt him later, but it was the only thing which got him into the artillery in the first place, and as we all know that's what let him step up.
>This explanation seems to disregard the man's immense popularity in France at the time. Censorship and Government control was far more lax than in any other European country.
The second part of that post mentions his popularity, which was at its height in the beginning of his reign, not later. As time passed and the wars dragged on, the French people became increasingly tired of him.
You have a source about the censorship? I'm pretty positive the French press was more censored than the British, and I can assure you police surveillance was massive.
