6 replies to this topic

[Overdose]

When comparing to people that came before and after him? Was Napoleon really so bad? His enemies pretty much treated him like Satan at the time. The only cruel thing he did that comes to my mind was ordering his cannons to fire at the frozen lake that the enemy soldiers were fleeing (Their nationality doesn't come to mind at the moment) sending them to a gelid and watery grave. Considering when it comes to warfare likewise cruel and even worse things take place and are considered fair play. Wouldn't Napoleon just be a benevolent entity when comparing to anyone else really that has played the power game in Europe?

Ambition simply doesn't qualify in my eyes as evil.

Please lend me your thoughts on this subject.

Edited by Overdose, 08 March 2009 - 02:26.

[nip]

Napoleon was a psychopath like Beethoven, Nietsche, Luther, Van Gogh, Maupassant and many others, good or bad. The psychopathic affectivity becomes the driving force to develope, enlarge or deepen a genius. It is the self indulgence and disharmonism of psychopathy that produce such a sociological phenomenon like the genius Napoleon. Napoleon is sometimes compared to Hitler and some similarities can be found:

Napoleon/Hitler:
beyond all measure
massively exaggerated at school
cold hearted, disinterested, thought of nothing but oneself
originating fantasy and immense impulsiveness
spontaneous and calculating outbursts of fury
irritable impatience of highest grade
incredible egoist
own moral concepts
unbearable, a pain for the environment
hothead, irascible, reluctance towards financial and legal issues
destructive frenzy
have a cruel streak
great actor
master of exploitation
Caesarean madness

The political careers of Napoleon and Hitler are remarkable similar with a time distance of roughly 129 years.

1790-1794: intensive political activity of Napoleon, he was temporarily jailed - 129 years later - 1919-1223: Hitlers party political activities and jail at Landsberg am Lech in 1924 after the November-Putsch failed in 1923

1795: Napoleon 'off duty'. - 129 years later - 1924: Hitler jailed at Landsberg am Lech

1796-1804: Napoleon was active and reached the summit. First consul then emperor - 129 years later - 1925-1933: Hitler endeavours political power and becomes chancellor in 1933 then 'leader'

1809: Napoleon in Vienna - 129 years later - 1938: Hitler in Vienna

June 1812: Napoleons Russia expedition - 129 years later, guess what - June 1941: Hitlers Russia expedition

1815: Waterloo - 129 years later - 1944: Allied invasion

Was Napoleon bad? Yes, his wars ravaged Europe and killed hundreds of thousands. Others still worship him seeing him as a strenuous reformer with noteworthy political and social result. His administrative reform, his body of laws, his educational system to name a few...

Thomas Jefferson on Napoleon

[Rayburn]

Interestingly, there's a law in France which forbids you from naming a pig Napoleon. Apparently, despite having started a series of wars which cost the lives of at least three million people, Napoleon is widely considered a 'reformer' or 'military genius' even though he was also a megalomaniac tyrant who, just like Hitler, was eventually defeated. Kinda makes me wonder how long it's going to take until Hitler is seen in a similarly uncritical way. Granted, Hitler's crimes are much better documented and more 'abstract' and 'far away' in the minds of current generations than Napoleon.

Edited by Rayburn, 08 March 2009 - 09:08.

[CommanderJB]

While not having studied much (well, alright, at all) the subject of Mr. Bonaparte, I haven't heard anything dreadful about him. My uninformed opinion would be that on the whole he was hardly a monster and, for the most part, a great figure for his country. Certainly I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe he was the next worst thing since unsliced bread; I'd chalk paintings of him as the Great Satan as the typical propaganda seen in every war from the First World War to Iraq (and probably since people started braining each other with rocks for that matter). Even though the wars he initiated were truly devastating back then war was simply another foreign policy tool. He didn't commit genocide, didn't visit terror on his own people, and for the most part respected his enemies. He was greedy and mildly insane, just like almost every other 'great' historical ruler, but he was no worse than his contemporaries, ancient or modern.

[Rich19]

CommanderJB, on 8 Mar 2009, 9:43, said:

While not having studied much (well, alright, at all) the subject of Mr. Bonaparte, I haven't heard anything dreadful about him. My uninformed opinion would be that on the whole he was hardly a monster and, for the most part, a great figure for his country. Certainly I haven't seen anything to lead me to believe he was the next worst thing since unsliced bread; I'd chalk paintings of him as the Great Satan as the typical propaganda seen in every war from the First World War to Iraq (and probably since people started braining each other with rocks for that matter). Even though the wars he initiated were truly devastating back then war was simply another foreign policy tool. He didn't commit genocide, didn't visit terror on his own people, and for the most part respected his enemies. He was greedy and mildly insane, just like almost every other 'great' historical ruler, but he was no worse than his contemporaries, ancient or modern.

^ This. He came to power after the people elected him to the position of consul for life (IIRC). I think any stories of true horror, such as accounts of Waterloo, are more down to warfare of the time rather than the man himself.

I realise that his ambition caused him to drive his armies into Russia, but this is hardly on a par with genocide.

[partyzanpaulzy]

I think Napoleon was rather good ruler of that era (he wasn't madman, but he was megalomaniac and although caused death of many people, there were much worse people on a throne in other countries). As he said: The history is written by winners...

Quote

129 years later

Hmm, this reminds me historical cycles... history kinda repeats, each time different, but it repeats (communists weren't first who tried to build socialism, in the 15th-16th century there were Hussits (Czech lands), protestants who believed in socialism and God (and some crazy things like upcoming Apocalypse)). Also I have read somewhere (so take it rather as hyperbole) Nostradamus had 2 teachers in his prognosis, both used mathematical formulas and Nostradamus improved these formulas.
True is the history knows many similar events (like each end of year ending on 8 is time of big social changes). Old chinese wisdom says that to understand future you have to look into history.

Edited by partyzanpaulzy, 10 March 2009 - 12:33.

[The Wandering Jew]

(Note 1: Political issues)
1. Installing his relatives as members of his government was a very bad idea. Such method instills corruption.

2. However, his Napoleonic code has laid the basis of much of Western Europe's administrative and judicial foundations (which until now I could not think of what would be Europe's politics. Feudalism perhaps? Or traditional monarchy?)

So he's done much and damaged much to shape world politics as we know today, and that's something to take note of.


(Note 2: Moral issues)
1. What is the difference between Jack the Ripper and Napoleon? Nothing, except that the former has never been identified and the latter was France's leader.

2. What is the difference of a serial killer to Adolf Hitler? Nothing, except that Adolf Hitler was Germany's leader.

3. Would you expect the offspring/s of tax-paying, honest, charitable parents be tax-paying, honest and charitable too?

4. Would you expect the offspring/s of corrupt and dishonest parents be corrupt and dishonest too?

If so, what factor has made these men to act like megalomaniacs?

Environment.