Napoleon is overrated.
He was a pussy-worshiping kuk who got lucky a couple times fighting Italians and coalition forces.
He censored the press, he was a despotic monarch who put his stupid family in positions of immense power, and marched millions under his command into senseless death cus he couldn't bully Russia to stop trading with Britain.
I used to think he was cool, that is, until I really read about him.
>>338200
>actively avoiding the word filters just to use now largely meaningless meme word
Stop.
>>338200
Are you the same butthurt faggot who made another thread stating the same thing and posted your shit in every thread about him?
Stop being assblasted ffs, it's been 200 years
>who got lucky a couple times
ah, so you read that one polemic book and now you're going to parrot its point for the next couple of weeks.
>>338200
>I used to think he was cool, that is, until I really read about him.
That's a bad idea. Honestly most "history" books these days are just some guys opinion and you can come away with totally different views if you believe them, even on the same topic.
Try learning more objective factual history, which doesnt actually exist but you can come close.
Why is no one in this thread actually engaging with what I said?
You're all making pretty bullshit retorts to what I said.
Address what I said--explain why I should Napoleon in high esteem?
He was a frumpy mamas boy who got lucky against inferior opponents.
>>338315
>Address what I said--explain why I should Napoleon in high esteem?
Explain why we should care about you and your opinion of Napoleon.
>got lucky
He successively won every battle he fought for years on end. As a britfag I'm not exactly the guys biggest fan but at the very least he was good at waging war.
>>338315
>Address what I said
you offered nothing. there is no case.
>It is true that if a man abuses another, he is simply showing that he has no real or true causes of complaint against him; as, otherwise, he would bring these forward as the premises, and rely upon his hearers to draw the conclusion themselves: instead of which, he gives the conclusion and leaves out the premises, trusting that people will suppose that he has done so only for the sake of being brief.
>>338352
>He successively won every battle he fought for years on end
Very early in his career (in his Corsican independence fight bugalloo, he lost every single battle).
Also, pic related is historically revised numbers of his losses in the Russian Campagin, he lost a least a million from his combined coalition.
8 out of 10 men, lost. An inexcusable blunder that even his most loyal generals who were with him from the very beginning couldn't forgive him for.
Napoleon only won austerlitz due to poor communication between his enemies' coalition.
Also, he committed gigantic blunders in the battle of waterloo--and don't give me that "napoleon had the shitz so he wasn't on his a-game" excuse.
No johns--Napoleon could beat shitty egotistical italians, barbaric arabs/turks. and unarmed french parisians. That's it--not that impressive.
>>338391
Forgot pic.
I know this is bait and l'm probably an even bigger idiot than you for responding, but you're wrong on all accounts.
Got lucky a couple of times, huh? Let's see, he fought seven wars which included 60 battles, almost all of which he won. Most of the ones he did lose don't particularly matter because they kicked him right after his retreat from Russia. Speaking of which, he " lost " in Russia because he had bested everything they threw at him before and the Russians were too chicken to meet him in the field again.
But yeah, keep on spouting memes, faggot. Christ, l wish Voltaire-posting would come back instead.
>>338402
What about the calvary charge at Waterloo? It was stupid as fuck--he practically threw them away in that battle.
Also, ordering his Old Guard to charge uphill into elite British infantry? Also stupid as fuck.
Also, refer to this:>>338391
Napoleon sucked early on in his career, and lost most of his battles.
>>338428
>Waterloo
Now that's just cheating
>>338315
>Why is no one in this thread actually engaging with what I said?
What is there even to adress?
You just spat horseshit
>got lucky a couple times fighting Italians and coalition forces.
He won 5 wars against a coalition of the most powerful of the time
Are you rerally going to attribute that to luck?
>He censored the press, he was a despotic monarch who put his stupid family in positions of immense power
Are you really going to judge him by modern standard?
Sure he was more "despotic" than Justin Trudeau, but he was still much more democratic than his enemies, the other european monarchs
He kept quite a few values from the revolution intact and his civil code is the basis for most of modern laws in the world
>>338391
>Napoleon fought about 60 battles and lost seven, mostly at the end of his reign
Attacking Russia was a huge blunder, but it was the elements that defeated him, not the Russian army
Austria, Prussia and Russia formed 4 coalitions to beat him, and they failed every time. That cannot just be him 'getting lucky'
As for Waterloo, Marshal Ney managed to sacrifice all of his cavalry by charging the British squares, which undoubtedly contributed to his defeat, not of his doing.
>>338443
>What is there even to adress?
>You just spat horseshit
Read the thread loser.
Then reply.
Such a terrible general...
>>338449
>complain that people ignore his arguments
>then proceed to ignore counter-arguments
>>338443
>his civil code
I actually read how he got those laws written, did you? No, you're just quoting a documentary you watched.
Napoleon whipped lawyers day in and day out tirelessly until they banged out that civic code--he weighed in a couple of times, but most of it was not his doing--he was the "executive producer" of the movie.
>>338428
>Waterloo
See what l mean? Kicking a man while he's done doesn't make you better.
Besides, that was mostly Ney's fault. You could blame Napoleon for assigning him to that particular job, but that's pretty much it.
>he wurz amurzing gen gen
He couldn't hold a candle to Caesar.
>Waterwoo dun count!
Seriously guys?
First time Napoleon faces a disciplined army, aka Britain, he gets his shit pushed in so hard that fan bois centuries later are still feeling the pain.
>>338528
Prussia was certainly a disciplined army. So was Russia and Austria. Please try to do at least a little research before spouting off about subjects you have very little actual information on
>>338528
>British Army
>Competent
There is a reason they focused on a navy and making sure no one on mainland Europe could get big enough to challenge it.
>>338542
>Prussia was certainly a disciplined army.
They BECAME one, they weren't when Napoleon was strutting his shit all around the place--hence the franco-prussian war.
>>338547
They didn't focus on Navy because they had shit infantry, are you retarded?
Also, their infantry was fuckin good, and their naval superiority was indisputable until WW2.
>>338547
The British Expeditionary Force under Wellington was very competent, battling its way through Portugal and Spain into France.
>>338528
>The British won Waterloo
End yourself.
>>338528
Are you fucking serious?
Britain was notoriously known to have the worse army in that era (pic related, and keep in mind that these are entire campaigns, not just random battles)
Prussians saved the day at Waterloo, and even Wellington's army was mainly made of non-British
>>338562
Ever heard of Frederick the Great, faggot?
Prussia had the most disciplined army in Europe before Napoleon wrecked them in 1806
>>338572
>battling its way through Portugal and Spain into France
In SIX FUCKING YEARS for fuck's sake
No other force during the Napoleonic Wars have been so fucking slow at making an advance
While Wellington was struggling to conquer Spain, other country battled their way through all Europe several times (pic related)
Now, add to that the fact that Spain was a secondary front to which the French were less comitted, and Britain become the literal joke of the Napoleonic Wars
>>338773
>tfw Dutch
I'm liking how them looks
>>338315
We don't need to address your points because you're wrong. It is a fact that he was a great general.
>>338910
I accidentally a word
>>338528
>prussians
>not disciplined
Also >claiming the British won Waterloo
While I'm a huge Wellingtonboo, he even mentions in his fucking dispatches that if the Prussians didn't reinforce they would have lost the battle. Napoleon was basically the Frederick the Great of his time as he won amazing victories against hugely numerically foes. Hell, his Italian campaign is a strategical and tactical masterpiece
>>338829
The joke that was the only force unbeaten by Napoleon and all of his Marshals? The only force that didn't sign any kind of treaty with Napoleon?
>>338481
Nah m8, ney was just trying make a last ditch effort.
Napoleon really fucked up by not starting the battle earlier and not be as aggressive which was the complete opposite of his usual nature.
The Napoleon we know and love was not the Napoleon at waterloo.
>>339272
Flanders wasn't the BEF we're talking about, under the command of Wellington. I'm pretty it was the Duke of York who commanded the forces who fought in that campaign.
>>338428
>calvary charge at Waterloo
>calvary
That was a grandiose suicide attempt by Ney while Napoopan was off the field.
Sounds like you read a pretty shitty and butthurt book.
>>338315
He created the modern world you dumb fuck.
If the world is divided into nation-states built upon constitutions, civil law, and democratic principles, it's because of him. If we drive on the right side of the road and use the metric system, that's also because of him. Not to mention all kinds of other random shit like him inventing Egyptology.
>>339333
Sure, but l don't think Waterloo was winnable. The Brits could have help Napoleon in place for quite a bit longer than they actually did.
The borderline-suicidal Ney didn't really help either, but hebwas hardly the worst of his generals.
>tfw no lannes
>tfw no desaix
;_;7
>>338481
>>340195
Ney could be a great general sometimes, but he was full nuts the day of Waterloo
>Ney was seen [11] during one of the charges beating his sword against the side of a British cannon in furious frustration. During the battle he had five horses killed under him;[12] and at the end of the day, Ney led one of the last infantry charges, shouting to his men: "Come see how a marshal of France dies!".[13] It was as though Ney was seeking death, but death did not want him, as many observers reported.[14][15]
>>340231
Even if France had won the battle, the Seventh Coalition was just too big
>>340246
he was pretty lack luster during the 6th coalition as well,
although the most egregious example I'm thinking of (Bautzen) also had Napoleon deprive him of part of his force prior to the battle
>>340217
Only a fucking retard would consider this a good thing. The nation state idiocy directly caused some of the biggest wars and genocides this world has ever seen.
>>340281
>muh all structures are oppressive, Modernism led to the Holocaust, fuck having rules and shit
Good post-structuralist shill.
>>340311
Wellington wasn't smug at all. He publicly admitted he would have lost if not for the Prussian army.
>>340393
>Wellington wasn't smug at all
>>340369
I'm a reactionary you cyclopean retard. If you can't grasp why I consider nation states to be cancerous then you're pretty much lost already.
>>340246
>yfw ney was a khorne berserker
>>338910
kanker
>>338200
>who got lucky a couple times fighting Italians and coalition forces
>replicated his previous results 4 times
>>338428
>he sucked early on
It happens. I don't see how this is an issue. Even Wellington sucked his dick.
>>338477
>being the impetus by which i thing occurs doesn't matter
So every great reforming ruler is just garbage too? Does Hadrian not get credit for his wall because he didn't make it by hand himself?
>>340411
You're unironically defending the feudal system for the present day? That's just hilarious. Is it because of your kekoldry fetish?
>>338200
>masterful force marches were luck
>Morengo was luck
>Austerlitz was luck
>Jena was luck
>Borodino was luck
>getting a populace of soldiers to rally behind you after a devastating defeat was luck
>having marshals throw their lot in with you knowing their lives will be ruined if you lose is luck
The only thing Napoleon was lucky about was the era he was in to come to power. 30 years earlier and he'd have never had a chance. Everything past then was methodically calculated. The man his solders feel proud, he trained them force march under strain, and paid them well. His marshals, even the ones who didn't like him, were extremely loyal. Napoleon's worst mistake was the continental system. Taking Moscow instead of St. Petersburg was him being ahead of his time.
>>340446
He wants his king to make sure he gets the right to sleep with every bride on her wedding night.
literally all britain did was jack off on their boats and steal neutral denmark's ships.
