Your thoughts on Napoleon fhe First

[Mastermax009]

As one might figure from the subject title, i want to know peoples thoughts on Napoleon.
You see i recently had a discussion with my mother on whether or not he was, and i qoute (Though translated from danish) "An insane power-hungry military dictator" My mother was very clear on the subject of Napoelons insanity, whereas i thought, and still think to this day, that Napoleon was a great man who changed europe for the better.
Amongst many other things the concept of equal numbers for houses on one side of the road and unequal for the other side of the road was Napoleons idea.
Napoleon was also the first of his time to have votes where any man regardless of colour was allowed to vote, albeit women were not allowed to vote at the time.
So there you have my question, what do you think of Napoleon, was he a power hungry dictator or a man worthy of praise?

 

[Coraxian]

Any person who has ambitions such as his are sure to provoke some strong, mixed reactions if they follow through on them. Alexander, for instance, was generally seen as Great in European eyes, but dispised in Iran and other Eastern countries.

In my eyes, though, I think he deserves some praise for dragging Europe kicking and screaming into the 19th century. Or better yet, to make the 19th century what it became later on.

Mainly the Napoleonic code springs to mind.

Anyone bringing that big a change is sure to catch flack, but seeing what change that was, I thank him for it.

As an example: in a town close to where I live there's a big church. Napoleon placed the town hall right in front of the main doors of this church, hiding them from view (though they're accesible). A litteral execution of State before Church.

Edit: Don't start the whole "short guy" thing, please, since he wasn't a shorty in his day. Only English cartoonists made him look short at the time. That and standing next to his elite guard who'd make anyone look short in their day.

 

[artanis_neravar]

The two are not mutually exclusive

 

[Colour Scientist]

He was a great military strategist, other than that I wouldn't know too much about him apart from general knowledge. He never really caught my interest other than his military tactics.

 

[sky14kemea]

Je suis Napoleon!

That's all I really know about Napoleon, that and his awesome hat. From what I heard though, he was pretty good at his job till he went nuts. >.>

Either way, He definitely helped shape history!

 

[ZeroMachine]

The only thing I really know about him is that I'm distantly related to him through marriage.

So tell your mom to stop insulting my family

 

[Zykon TheLich]

He was

 

[Mastermax009]

He' be perfect if he wasnt so damn squat and ugly, but starting a coup during turbulent times and seizing the role of emperor doesnt hurt, esppecially ballsy since they just killed off anybody having to do with monarchy.

I feel the need to correct you in this matter.
Napoleon did not seize the role of emperor, he and one of his brothers Lucien and a great deal of others, including future king of Neapel Joachim Murat, overthrew the french government, which had begun to defy the laws which had been granted to all after the revolution. After the coup the choice of who was to be First Consul was left the the french people, Napoleon won, although it was close, 3 million voting for Napoleon and 1562 not doing so.
In the years following Napoleons election France saw better days than they had during the the reign of the royalty. The price of bread dropped lower than ever, the legal code was revised and the army was in tip top shape.
So naturally people wanted this to continue more than 3 years (the maximum amount of time one was allowed to be First Consul) so people voted Napoleon Consul for life. But when relations with Britain began getting worse, a problem appeared, the First Consul was not allowed to lead an army, and so Napoleon was crowned emperor, i say crowned because the sentence "Napoleon crowned himself emperor" is a mere technicality. You see he did crown himself, in the sense that he himself put the crown on his own head, rather than the pope. Napoleon did this to show that this was not just a new king with a fancier sounding title, but a man who would take things into his own hands, rather than let other people do things for him. So you see Napoleons election to emperor was actually just a technicality, he didn't gain any power that he didn't already have, he only gained a fancier title.

 

[Mastermax009]

know why?

Cos Britaaaaniiia ruuullle the waaaaves!

Least we did till we Ebayed the Ark Royal.

You are completely correct, Britain where the best when it came to naval warfare at the time, in fact the only ones who came close where the Danes, who where beaten during "Slaget på Reden" by Admiral Horatio Nelson. Who actually commented that the Danes had shown more battle spirit than any others he had ever fought in all of his sea-battles, by that a small victory was won by the Danes although we lost the battle itself.

 

[standokan]

He´s awesome and indeed not as short as is thought by many.

 

[EllEzDee]

Militarily, he's like a better version of Hitler. He started out pretty great, up until he became greedy and attacked his ally, Spain. And that proved to be his downfall. Portugal + Spain + Britain = Anal fucked France.
Civilarily (it's a word now) he reformed France, with laws and conducts still in effect today...though he was known for censoring the French press.

The stories of his generals and their valour are amazing though. Like the Polish Józef Antoni Poniatowski whose escape route, a bridge the army was evacuating through, was destroyed, and rather than surrender, he fought until he was severely wounded before plunging into the river and possibly drowning/died from his wounds; and Michel Ney, who was so respected by his soldiers that after being given the death penalty by the reinstated French monarchy, he was allowed to give the order to fire.

 

[concrete89]

He tried to invade Russia.
This proves that he had guts. It also proves that he had a rather unbalanced Guts-To-Brains ratio.
While this may be a good quality in a friend, it is a rather shitty quality for a political leader.

But still, this proves that even if he had enough brains to rule France and conquer a sizeable chunk of Europe, and still, he had more guts than that...

 

[StellarViking]

He should have used some Preparation H. The only reason he looked so short is because he frequently appeared with the Old Guard, which was primarily composed of some pretty tall dudes. He was a strong leader, but absolutely power corrupts absolutely, and eventually he made some pretty serious tactical blunders, and then wound up losing a battle to a guy that invented some boots.

That and there's the whole trying to out-navy Britain and trying to invade Russia during the winter.

 

[SckizoBoy]

He' be perfect if he wasnt so damn squat and ugly.

Allow me to disabuse you of that common misconception. He was 5'8" (cf Admiral Lord Nelson = 5'4").

know why?

Cos Britaaaaniiia ruuullle the waaaaves!

Least we did till we Ebayed the Ark Royal.

His plan (before the 7th Coalition sicked him) was to basically flood the Channel/Mediterranean with third raters, since the French economy and population could sustain a much larger navy than Britain (in 1800-ish, France had a population twice that of GB). Britain could field approx 70-80 ships of the line, so he wanted approx 120, but he lost, so it never happened. Anyway, he gave up the notion of trying to invade Britain even before Trafalgar.

That and there's the whole trying to out-navy Britain and trying to invade Russia during the winter.

Meh, few military 'geniuses' have unblemished records.

Anyway, I know little about Napoleon politically, but I do know that he brough the French economy back from the brink and made France prosperous. He was fairly fair to his enemies, in the C19th fashion, Saxony/Confederation of the Rhine didn't suffer too much (for context).

Militarily, he finally lost because he got lost in the myth of his invincibility. Even after the setback (can't remember the battle) against the Austrians, he still swept the Coalitions aside. So, invading Russia is easily considered his biggest mistake, though I think that contemplating war on an eastern front while Portugal/Spain/Britain were kicking Joseph out of France was a bigger mistake.

During the Hundred Days, he's got seniority over Ney, so threaten d'Erlon. Ligny could have been a more complete victory if d'Erlon's corps was present. I'm not sure what would have been a good alternative to detaching Grouchy off so I'll leave it. And Hougoumont was supposed to be a diversion?! (Yeah, he commits roughly a quarter of his army to take it, only for nothing to happen...)

Despite this, Austerlitz was the best tactical move of the entire Napoleonic era... though Wellington at Salamanca was a damned good move too.

TLDR He was OK, but I'm glad it turned out how it did...

 

[HerrBobo]

As one might figure from the subject title, i want to know peoples thoughts on Napoleon.
You see i recently had a discussion with my mother on whether or not he was, and i qoute (Though translated from danish) "An insane power-hungry military dictator" My mother was very clear on the subject of Napoelons insanity, whereas i thought, and still think to this day, that Napoleon was a great man who changed europe for the better.
Amongst many other things the concept of equal numbers for houses on one side of the road and unequal for the other side of the road was Napoleons idea.
Napoleon was also the first of his time to have votes where any man regardless of colour was allowed to vote, albeit women were not allowed to vote at the time.
So there you have my question, what do you think of Napoleon, was he a power hungry dictator or a man worthy of praise?

You can not judge him on the standards of today.

Was he power hungry dictator? Sure, but no more then any other European leader in the 19th Century.

 

[rokkolpo]

know why?

Cos Britaaaaniiia ruuullle the waaaaves!

Least we did till we Ebayed the Ark Royal.

You are completely correct, Britain where the best when it came to naval warfare at the time, in fact the only ones who came close where the Danes, who where beaten during "Slaget på Reden" by Admiral Horatio Nelson. Who actually commented that the Danes had shown more battle spirit than any others he had ever fought in all of his sea-battles, by that a small victory was won by the Danes although we lost the battle itself.

you forget the dutch
The english crapped their pants when the dutch came round
Might have something to do with the time the dutch sailed in burned chatham to the ground and took the HMS royal charles with them just to scrap it
Or that time the dutch sailed in landed some few thousand men marched on london and put their I believe it was Willem 3 on the throne

Which by the way still leads to a dutch claim to the english throne somewhere if dozens of heirs suddenly died right now

My point being The dutch ruled the waves Brittain should accept that and not go be a proud bunch of nobs cause they beat the french
Neither should the french be proud because most of their naval victories were only achieved by calling in auxiliary dutch captains

Edit : Oh and we should also account that the Dutch east indian company Controlled the indies and the Dutch West Indian company was the primary player in the slave trade and buccaneering trade
You know kicking the spanish in the gut by stealing their treasure fleets and knocking off british ships before the cape left and right

To be fair, from one dutchman to another.
In the four dutch-english wars. The British did finally annihilate use by the fourth.
Even though we gave them hell for some century's before that.

Afterwards we also got raped by the French. >_>
(Fucking French!)