Opinion of Napoleon Bonaparte

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

No wiki link needed, but if you insist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon

Lean HP.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Lean HP??!!?

Anyway, I'll give him some credit like I give Nixon some credit. He made his mark, even if it was terrible.

[Lief 🗽]

Huge FF (normal).

[politicus]

Huge FF

[This user has not been convicted of 34 felonies]

Angry, miserable little troll of a man. Historically significant, though. HP regardless.

[ElectionsGuy]

Huge HP

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Angry, miserable little troll of a man. Historically significant, though. HP regardless.

Average height

Anyway, I feel about as favourable towrds Napoleon as I do any other war-mongering imperialist dictator.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Objectively awful but I can't help but love the man for some odd reason. He did end European feudalism.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

He did end European feudalism.

Er... no.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

He did end European feudalism.

Er... no.

Well okay, my statement was overly broad.

[Cory]

The greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth. The world would be a better place if he won in 1812.

[BaconBacon96]

Massive FF.

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

He was a whole lot of both.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Kinda both.

[windjammer]

Huge FF

[ingemann]

The Hitler of the early 19th century.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Hitler of the early 19th century.

I wasn't aware Napoleon orchestrated a genocide.

[Cassius]

The Hitler of the early 19th century.

I wasn't aware Napoleon orchestrated a genocide.

That's true, but nonetheless, there are a number of uncanny similarities between the two. For example, both fashioned themselves as great patriotic leaders who encapsulated the essence of their own nation, yet both also began life as outsiders (Hitler was an Austrian of course, whilst Napoleon was the son of Corsican nationalists and grew up on and island which had only very recently become French territory). Both probably would not have achieved very much were it not for the extraordinary circumstances (and extraordinary luck) that both were thrust into; for Napoleon, the collapse of the Ancien Regime and thus much of the old officer corps, and for Hitler the collapse of the German Empire and the disintegration of Weimar's credibility as a state. Of course, both also embarked upon disastrous invasions of Russia (indeed, just as Hitler's Germany signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Russia, so Napoleon signed the Treaty of Tilsit with Tsar Alexander, a document that was rather similar, in certain respects, to the aforementioned pact).

Also, of course, both had and continue have their own weird cults of personality, despite the fact that both men were considerably less 'great' then they are made out to be. Napoleon's overreach as Emperor of the French is remarkably similar to Hitler's overreach as Fuhrer; both lacked solid, grounded aims that were achievable in the long run, and this eventually cost them dearly.

As to the main question, I'd say pretty solid HP. I mean, Napoleon is one of those ridiculously overrated historical figures, and certainly doesn't warrent much of the praise that he is given. The myth of Napoleon the statesman and the reformer is just that, a myth. For example, the much vaunted Code Napoleon was not written by Napoleon (as is sometimes claimed), and much of it had already been put together prior to his rise to supreme power. He did not sweep away the nobility; that had largely been done by the Revolution, and, indeed, he set up his own nobility, whilst the Concordat of 1801 (restoring relations between the Papacy and France), brought back the old Church, except in a form which was essentially under the thumb of the regime.

Meanwhile, on the foreign policy front, I fail to see any great achievements of his. He failed to defeat the British (utterly), his efforts to impose the 'continental system' to strangle British trade with Europe were farcical, his grand scale nepotism (you know, the whole attempting to place members of his family upon every throne he could grasp hold of), lasted less than a decade, and was also rather farcical. He successfully managed to alienate just about every power in continental Europe (even the Spanish, whom, prior to the imposition of Joseph Bonaparte as King, had been fairly favourable to the French), who all eventually banded together to destroy him.

Finally of course, there's the myth of Napoleon the great military leader. Granted, this one has firmer foundations in fact than some of the others, but its still a bit ridiculous. Whilst he did well in certain campaigns (the Italian campaign and the Ulm-Austerlitz campaign to name two), he was usually at his best when faced with opponents whose commanders were distinctly sub-par (the 'unfortunate General Mack'). When confronted by competent, even semi-competent commanders like Wellington, the Archduke Charles and Kutuzov, his military record is less glittering. Even some of his finest military achievements, such as his victory in the Ulm-Austerlitz campaign, were often the work of his subordinates (for example, its a little known fact that at the battle of Ulm, Napoleon only defeated a small section of the Prussian army, whilst Davout, one of Napoleon's more competent commanders, actually destroyed the bulk of the Prussian forces at Auerstedt. Needless to say, Napoleon made sure that Ulm loomed larger in history). Napoleon was not a great military leader, and certainly was a terrible strategist (yeah, the invasions of Spain and Russia were such great ideas ).

Nevermind the fact that his wars (most of which were initiated by him) caused massive destruction and suffering on a terrible scale, whilst simultaneously bleeding France dry and setting back its industrial development (and wiping out much of its young population). To my mind, Napoleon was something of a lucky opportunist, one who soared to great heights, only to crash and burn horribly.

[pendragon]

A curious case, Napoleon.  I suspect that either a world where he was completely victorious and became the master of Europe, or one where he was quickly nipped in the bud by the Third Coalition, would both likely be an improvement on the world we live in.

He did have a rather poor record of bellicosity, and his wars were bloody and devastating.  Then again, his opponents were at least as fond of starting wars on little to no pretext as he was.  Still, you have to subtract a good many points on that front.

He was quite the improvement over the Jacobins, but not over the Hapsburgs or the Bourbons (French or Spanish).  I suspect that it's most fair to compare him to the Jacobins, so points to him on balance there.

He had an unfortunate habit of attempting to provoke ethnic nationalism, and of destroying institutions for the sake of destroying institutions, with no thoughts to the consequences or ideas for how to replicate the roles of those institutions.  Both turned into rather unfortunate trends where Europe is concerned in the 19th and 20th centuries.  He was not as bad in this regard as the Jacobins, or, in the long term, his British opponents.  Still, not a positive.

From a narrowly self-interested perspective, he was rather good for the gays.  (He was good for the Jews, too, not that that applies to me personally).  So I'll say FF, although if "FF" had been leading in the poll instead of "HP," I might very well have chosen the latter.

[H. Ross Peron]

Hitler is what someone would have come up with if some late Victorian author wrote a "scientific fantasy" of the 20th Century and decided to throw in for the irony a German Bonaparte even more monstrous and insane than the original.

[TDAS04]

Huge HP

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

HP, as he is one of the 3 antichrists.

[Dr. Cynic]

The Hitler of the early 19th century.

Napoleon at least had some brains. Napoleon was interested in lots of subjects not including the military and he was fascinated by science, history, math, literature and any number of things. Napoleon did treat religious and ethnic minorities a hell of a lot better than many other European countries.

There's one story I remember reading. When Napoleon was invading Russia, he happened upon a military doctor who had his son with him. He complained that the boy should be in school, not marching with the army. The doctor told Napoleon he was a widower and had no one else to take care of him. Well, that doctor died of infection during the hellish retreat out of Russia. Napoleon came upon the name of the doctor on a casualties list and remembered it. He paid personally for the boy's schooling.

I'm not saying it makes him a good person, indeed, I feel he's one of history's villains, but to compare him to Hitler seems silly. Hitler failed at just about everything he tried beforehand and compared to Napoleon who rose through the ranks on merit, Hitler basically lucked his way into becoming Fuhrer because he was handed power by coalition partners who were even bigger fools and didn't take him at face value, just as his voting strength was declining.

Hitler also never admitted mistakes or character flaws. The Germans are losing the war? It's their fault. Germany losing to Russia? Not my fault. It's General Paulus. Napoleon was far more reflective. In his writing, Napoleon mentions his regrets and takes responsibility for his failures. The loss at Waterloo? Failure to commit the Old Guard. The nightmare in Russia? Stayed too long in the capital and stretched supplies too thin. Hitler lacked the mental or emotional capacity to do that. He blamed others right until the end. Yes, they were both war mongers, but vastly different people.

[pendragon]

There are various heartwarming (and true) anecdotes about Hitler, too, y'know.

(Not that I think Napoleon is anywhere near as bad as Hitler).