Joined Dec 2009
2,847 Posts | 1+
rangiora
Napoleon by far had the biggest impact on Europe
- Thread starter Supercar120
- Start date
Joined Aug 2010
18,694 Posts | 3,383+
Welsh Marches
Indeed, we tend to overestimate wildly the effect that individual political figures have on the course of history, and overlook the deeper currents on which they are riding.
Joined Nov 2009
3,901 Posts | 56+
Outer world
Napoleon was an ambivalent person, with good sides and bad sides.
I've always admired his military capabilities which make him a genius , inspite what Sylla keeps on saying.
I admire how he was able to rule and introduce new laws and modernize Europe, undoubtedly his administrative skills were amazing.
I dislike his selfishness, his arrogance which led him to wage a conquest of Europe which provoked 1,600,000 deads.
Moreover, he was a thief.Louvre is full of masterpiece from Italy he took and brought away without our agreement.
I've always admired his military capabilities which make him a genius , inspite what Sylla keeps on saying.
I admire how he was able to rule and introduce new laws and modernize Europe, undoubtedly his administrative skills were amazing.
I dislike his selfishness, his arrogance which led him to wage a conquest of Europe which provoked 1,600,000 deads.
Moreover, he was a thief.Louvre is full of masterpiece from Italy he took and brought away without our agreement.
Joined Mar 2011
437 Posts | 2+
What makes Napoleon so great to me, is that he reflected so many qualities of the human condition. He had a desire to do good, but he also did bad. He wished to lead as an enlightened thinker, yet he was also a conqueror. He was a reformer, but also an authoritarian.
I find any claim that he was not 'great' practically incomprehensible. His impact can be fund in the sheer volume of litterature written about him, likely more than anyone else in history.
I feel his influence is greatest in the minds of men. From obscure origins, he rose to heights greater than any before him. He lost it all because he was a risk taker. He refused the status-quo because he wished for advancement. He had many grand ideas, the greatest of which he didn't get to implement because of the fierce opposition which eventually defeated him.
I find any claim that he was not 'great' practically incomprehensible. His impact can be fund in the sheer volume of litterature written about him, likely more than anyone else in history.
I feel his influence is greatest in the minds of men. From obscure origins, he rose to heights greater than any before him. He lost it all because he was a risk taker. He refused the status-quo because he wished for advancement. He had many grand ideas, the greatest of which he didn't get to implement because of the fierce opposition which eventually defeated him.
Joined Dec 2009
2,847 Posts | 1+
rangiora
All the evidence needed that Napoleon had a greater impact than any of those men can be found right here on historum. No other figure in history has had so much written about him. Seems to me that is as good a measure as any.
Joined Jan 2007
16,359 Posts | 31+
Nebraska
Yes, as in, "If you want to live as a human being instead of an animal, everybody go over to the king's house and cut his head off." They tried in 1848, but, as we know, time takes time. It wasn't going to happen all in one go.
That's what the kings were "reacting against."
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
But do you really believe that the deaths between roughly 1799-1815 are only caused by Emperor Napoleon? Or do you perhaps think that Kaiser Franz, Konig Friedrich-Wilhelm, King George and Czar Alexander have something do to with it to?
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
All historians also agree that at that Napoleon was a giant at that time. A lot of the French regarded him as a savior who came to save France from the enemies that penetrated her border. Also when Napoleon spoke to his soldiers they were stunned and amazed. For example when Napoleon arrived in Italy after receiving his commission as Commander of the Army of Italy no one thought much of him, but ones he arrived within the hour all this changed and suddenly the depressed soldiers believed in this campaign again and after seeing his military victories trough the early months of his campaign wanted to die for this man. This is one of the reasons why his man followed him so willingly at the bride of Lodi and even though the changes were against them won the battle by pure bravery. But Lodi also caused a change in Napoleon's mind. After Lodi, after being in the open, after personally commanding the cannons like an ordinary corporal (that's how the name little corporal came to be) he regarded himself as this god given send the French people thought he was and he believed his was lead by destiny to save France.
Historians say this eventually came to his head in 1808 when he started to organize some reckless campaigns into Spain and Russia and I have to agree with them, but this doesn't make Napoleon any less the man he was. He remains to this day a national hero and not a national villain like Hitler, his legacy remains to this day visible and I think it just stupid to doubt the greatness of this man. I think no man in history in his situation achieved so much and started with so little.
Historians say this eventually came to his head in 1808 when he started to organize some reckless campaigns into Spain and Russia and I have to agree with them, but this doesn't make Napoleon any less the man he was. He remains to this day a national hero and not a national villain like Hitler, his legacy remains to this day visible and I think it just stupid to doubt the greatness of this man. I think no man in history in his situation achieved so much and started with so little.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Nope, the carnage of hundreds of thousands was probably just an immense cosmic coincidence, that for any reason stopped the minute Monsieur Buonaparte abandoned the stage
You know, everyone misunderstood our pour universal conqueror wannabe...
After all, such carnage was >90% of the impact he ever had in Europe (the OP)
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Nope, the carnage of hundreds of thousands was probably just an immense cosmic coincidence, that for any reason stopped the minute Monsieur Buonaparte abandoned the stage
You know, everyone misunderstood our pour universal conqueror wannabe...
After all, such carnage was >90% of the impact he ever had in Europe (the OP)
I am not saying that Sylla please read more carefully. But please answer the question now once and forever. Were the monarchs of Europe partly guily for the deaths between 1799-1815 or not? Because then I know how close or far you are from the truth.
Also the wars against France already started under the early revolutionary governments? The monarchs of Europe would not stop until the Bourbons were restored on the thrown of France with or without Napoleon.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Once and forever???
In the same absurdly twisted way any .... victim may be fallaciously considered "guilty" of making the criminal uncomfortable when the former was being abused...
Tup, Herr Hitler also considered those pesky partisans who didn't allow themselves being comfortably conquered as "guilty" of the same crime.
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Once and forever???
In the same absurdly twisted way any .... victim may be fallaciously considered "guilty" of making the criminal uncomfortable when the former was being abused...
Tup, Herr Hitler also considered those pesky partisans who didn't allow themselves being comfortably conquered as "guilty" of the same crime.
Just answer the question Sylla instead of your endless speeches and comparisons to Hitler.
Joined Nov 2009
3,901 Posts | 56+
Outer world
Napoleon had his responsibility such as in Russia or Spain.
Nope, the carnage of hundreds of thousands was probably just an immense cosmic coincidence, that for any reason stopped the minute Monsieur Buonaparte abandoned the stage
You know, everyone misunderstood our pour universal conqueror wannabe...
After all, such carnage was >90% of the impact he ever had in Europe (the OP)
Be careful, till 1808 Napoleon never lead any offensive war being always attacked himself.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Careful????
You must be kidding to the Nth degree.
The tautological fact that Monsieur Buonaparte was the systematic imperialist expansionistic aggressor from the very first moment couln't have been any more evident.
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
With the second one I agree, but what do you mean by his responsibility in Russia and Spain. Because like I said several times only in Spain he had full responsibility and for most of it in Russia. So I should think we agree don't you think?
Joined Sep 2010
3,538 Posts | 10+
Somewhere in the former First French Empire
No it isn't since it were the monarchies of Europe, not Napoleon who declared war on France time after time. Take a look at all early coalitions and you get the drift.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
I have taken more than a look; Buonaparte was objectively the systematic aggressor.
And trying to convince you of anything against your will is not any of my goals here, even less banging my head against any dogma.
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
The question is answered as objectively as possible; any personal dogmatic stand couldn't change the facts an inch.
Joined Nov 2009
3,901 Posts | 56+
Outer world
Could you nominate one war before Spain he provoked intentionally invading someone else?
Joined Dec 2009
19,936 Posts | 25+
Last edited:
Essentially all of them; strictly speaking none of the attacks of his enemies was primary, even less gratuitous.
Monsieur Buonaparte systematically continued quite actively his expansionist policies even during the periods of nominal peace, fundamentally through diplomatic armed menace and plainly overtly bullying.
Again, pretending that absolutely anyone was conquering all Europe from any merely defensive strategy couldn't be any more naive to the Nth degree; only some radical fans could even remotely admit such preposterous explanation.
And amazing as it may sound, the coalitions against Monsieur Buonaparte virtually always involved traditional fierce mutual enemies (e.g. Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia and so on); if such lifelong enemies were required to join forces at all, that was naturally not due to any personal envy against our poorly misunderstood universal conqueror wannabe (as so often suggested by some radical fans all along Historum) but just to the hardly gratuitous panic from their common imperialistic aggressor; easy as that.
More History Discussions
- Poll
Trending History Discussions
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 7- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 861
-
-
The Great Captains of History - How Many Battles? - Version 5
- Started by DiocletianIsBetterThanYou
- Replies: 3K
-
The Diversity Of Early African Architecture/Ruins Thread- Started by Kilwa Sultanate
- Replies: 2K
-