"The personal opinions of Napoleon." Topic

Pro.

I didn't read any of this.

Stirring the pot again are we?

Don't you all know you shouldn't feed a troll?

Sheesh!

mjc

It passes the time between birth an death.

A bit of a bounder.

"On the obverse he created a police state in which political descent was ruthlessly suppressed."

Must've been a great many high politicians back in the day…

The truth is that Napoleon was far too complex a guy to some up in anything short of a book. Indeed I believe that more books have been written about him than any other person in history.

To quote Le Bedoyere from the movie Waterloo (stop laughing): "They'll say that you extended the limits of glory, sire."

At the end of the day I actually consider that to be true, unfashionable as it may be these days to consider that some parts of military history were indeed glorious.

To quote Le Bedoyere from the movie Waterloo (stop laughing): "They'll say that you extended the limits of glory, sire."

He was quite the sycophant, that one.

"At the end of the day I actually consider that to be true, unfashionable as it may be these days to consider that some parts of military history were indeed glorious."

I agree.

I also think a lot about the devastation to Europe, the horrible loss of life, the misery and suffering of the people and the soldiers, the futility, the waste, the oppression and exploitation of the common people, the ephemeral nature of Napoléon's great achievements.

The opposition of these two views is, for me, itself fascinating.

Frayer

Short, dead dude

"A nature ruined by an unparalleled series of successes". In addition to this contemporary opinion about the man himself, the same author stated that Napoleon, "like many parvenus, made the mistake of not despising sufficiently the class to which he had risen". Compared to the situation in most countries at the time, France was clearly more "advanced" (in the sense of progressing towards the kind of "democracy" and social provision we now find appropriate) than any other country in the combination of Constitution, legal system, education &c; while not all to be credited to Bonaparte, of course, nevertheless (I believe) he did keep the interests of the people in mind – some classes in particular – just so long as they, like so many conscripts, kept his requirements in mind likewise. As Stendhal put it, he gave the impression of caring for them, and metaphorically encouraged them, like so many children, to slumber peacefully while he took care of them.

Militarily, likewise "ruined by an unparalleled series of successes"; the hasty crossing of the Danube, 1809, was probably due to underestimating the Austrians as much as over-confidence, while the Russian Campaign seems to have been undertaken in a mood of fatalism rather than vaulting ambition, and the three last campaigns appear clearly (in retrospect, admittedly) to have been no more than staving off the inevitable. Spain seems a grotesque blunder too; one of the least negative things that can be said is that Napoleon underestimated the Spanish desire to stagnate in Mediaeval superstition, as an Enlightened Liberal, or indeed N himself, would have thought at the time.

But, overall, more positive than negative. There was a Tyrant, but little Despotism.

A lovely bloke on the side of progress but, the supression of the Bretons, Spain and Haiti and the size of the butchers bill.

Well, at this point I can understand more or less how way this forum go about Nap.

Taking the 40 individual opinions in this thread, the conclution is:

16 vote for the positive. (40%)
7 vote for the negative. (17%)
12 vote for the ambivalence. (30%)
5 made funny jokes. ( 3%)

And about the nationalities of those people, I take note that:

From the positive: 7 (44%) from the United Kingdom, 4 (25%)from USA, 5 (31%)from other countries.

From the negative: 5 (71%) unknown name or nationality, 1 from England and 1 from USA.

From the ambivalence: 6 (46%)unknown name or nationality, 4 (31%)from United Kingdom, 2 (15%) from Usa and 1 from Spain.

Many thanks for your cooperation.
Why so many unknowns persons here?.

Amicalement
Armand

Hardly overwhelming support for General di Bounaparte.

That's because this fellow you talk about was never Emperor of France. It was a bloke called Napoleon. I suggest you do some historical reading and see where this bloke you keep referring to is sourced.

Interesting to me, a complete new guy here, that 7 to 10 of the oposition to Napoleon or joking people are complety unknown.
Wile the rest had not any problem in put their names, adress or country were they lived.

Only an observation.

amicalement
Armand

Thank you for your fascinating insight.

- I would have said neutral, my preferred selection being Austria. However the general attitude on these boards has pushed me into the pro Napoleon camp. -

Ditto, even though I still lean toward neutral.

Just in case I am listed as joking or ambivelent, mark me as "negative" and from the US.

Brought an end to the Terror. Good
Just about everything after that: Bad

Clearly no regard for the lives of his men other than as tools to suit his purpose.

The code Napoleon has to be balanced against the levy and squandering of French youth. I'm sure that many would have rather have had their sons than his laws.

Abandons his armies when the going gets tough.

Subverts revolution against a king to make himself an emperor.

As with Hitler I imagine that hanging out with Nappy would be a laugh but I sure wouldn't want him wielding any sort of authority.

Bob

I love the Public Records Office in Kew, I always spend some time there when I get back to London. Most of my time I read files reading files relating to F Section of the Special Operations Executive. Every so often I read some of the War Department documents from the period 1805-1815 for a change. Funny original British sources call him General di Bounaparte or Bonaparte. The Corsican Ogre doesn't get called Napoleon or Emperor. So I'll continue to refer to him as such since that this historically correct for my country. thankee very much.

Interesting to me, a complete new guy here, that 7 to 10 of the oposition to Napoleon or joking people are complety unknown.
Wile the rest had not any problem in put their names, adress or country were they lived.

Only an observation.

And this matters because?

My name is Herman Munster. I live at 13 Mockingbird Lane. Goosebumps VA. My wife's name is Lily, my son is Eddie, and we have a problem grandparent.

Prove otherwise.

Hope that helps

You're completely unknown too. Go figure

Dear Mr. Herman Munster, a real pleasure to know about you.
I only made an observation about the unknown adress, name or city from so many people here.
I had put all dates that forum requires when I decided to write here.

Please not be angry with me because of my observation. It was only curiosity from my part.

I' sorry about your grandparent problem. Hope you can manage it well.

Amicalement
Armand

We lock him in the basement Armand, He seems happy down there. Our niece Marilyn is the real problem. I don't know what we'll do with that child, she seems to want to work all day and sleep all night.

btw, it's Napoleone di Buonaparte, not Bounaparte.
I hope those original British sources don't keep making that mistake?

Georgian spelling d*mn it all!

Furprifed they didn't call him Booneepart or just "that daftardly poltroon"!

Bob

'

Napoleon was good at killing.

When he did it on the battlefield, there was often a cleverness about his strategies that has to be admired such as at Austerlitz and Ulm. Though his laziness in developing battlefield tactics was eventually his undoing.

When he did it off the battlefield: cannon against unarmed rioters, firing on church-goers in Corsica, massacring thousands of prisoners and bayoneting women and children at Jaffa and even killing hundreds of his own soldiers for being sick in the Levant, then one can sympathise with the epithet ''Ogre''.

"Napoleon was good at killing."

Really? How many people did he murder. I take it you have some figures to back up that statement? Or is it another case of somebody being emotive about a period in history quite different to ours, with one obvious exception…the lives of our servicemen are as valuable to politicians today as they were back then.

"I love the Public Records Office in Kew, I always spend some time there when I get back to London."

You probably need to get out more in that case. That's a long trip from Minnesota to spend time in a dusty old filing room. Personally when I want to study history I tend to look for something a little more balanced, but each to his own.

Old Bear
"Napoleon was good at killing."
Really? How many people did he murder.''

I'll ignore your rudeness, OB and answer the question (although 'murder' is a word you used, not me and murder or conspiracy to murder in Western Europe 200 years ago was considered with the same repugnance as it is today. This was not the Wild West, but a place with a judiciary, Christian mores and more importantly, laws grown by the culture over centuries).

Bonaparte murdered Louis Antoine Henri de Bourbon, the Duc d'Enghien, a civilian who was snatched from a neutral country in peacetime and executed in an extra-judicial killing on Bonaparte's orders. He advised Jospeph, his brother, to kill innocent civilians in Spain (If you want to see the results, look at Goya's sketches. Even I can't stomach them) and gave similar instructions in Italy to 'encourageur les autres', in order to get the wealthy to cough up taxes.

We don't know if he personally shot the civilian church-goers in Corsica, only that he was there and leading the company that did. His 'whiff of grapeshot' is famous: again, he got someone else (Murat) to actually do it.

He certainly was in charge at Jaffa, and the deaths there were in the thousands: women and children bayoneted as they try to escape into the surf. This was a decision taken days (in some cases) after fighting had stopped.

He also paid Wellington's attempted assassin. Seperate to this, but relevent to a mind-set, is the fact that he re-introduced slavery. Not quite sure what you mean by 'emotive': if you think I could adopt a more objective grammatical style, you'll no doubt advise.

"So I'll continue to refer to him as such since that this historically correct for my country."

Even though I know that attempting to talk sense on the internet is the equivalent of debating with Jehovah Witnesses, I'm an educator and will try once last time …

It WAS the opinion of some factions of the UK government and society at THAT time (and was not universal). They had very specific and self-serving motives for doing so (maintenance of their own aristocratic power base). Take a look at what your government, society, and educational system have to say NOW. You didn't live THEN, you are living in NOW.

The British government of that time was also perfectly okay (on paper) with the idea that some people, by virtue of their being born of a different race and/or culture, were suited only to be treated as property rather than human beings – i.e. slavery. As for women, well, they ranked above slaves, but couldn't be trusted with any positions of authority or the vote. Are you going to be selective about living in the past, or is it an "in for a penny, in for a pound" proposition?

And yes, by the way, I know those examples are outlandish and unfair. As an American by birth, I hardly have bragging rights on the subjects. However, the point is that History is just that – History. It lived in it's own cultural context and now it's done and over. If you have a chip on your shoulder about Napoleon (as you certainly seem to have), then just come right out and say it! Say you don't like the little bstard and don't want to give him the title and the respect. Fine. Done. Even arguably justifiable from a certain limited perspective. However, trying to argue that your intensely personal crusade here can be justified by reference to an outdated system of political nomenclature is frustratingly wrong-headed and an abuse of history.

Gah – I'm regretting wasting my time writing this already!

"Vive L'Empereur"

Cacadores,

Simply state that Napoleon was ruthless and a leader who was comfortable with ordering death when it was politically expedient and I suspect you'll be hard pushed to find anybody here capable of disagreeing with you. But you specifically stated he was 'good at killing'. Killing is something a person does personally, and as a rule is generally murder or manslaughter unless in war time.

If you consider that by me pointing something that simple out to you I'm being rude you must have led a very sheltered life. I can be far ruder than that without even trying.

So…he ordered the the Turkish prisoners killed because it was inconvenient to guard them?

And the extrajudicial murder of d'Enghien was OK because he was blighter himself!

Rule of law bed*mn*d!

And my personal favorite: Corsica, Spain, and theoretically Naples too were "dirty" wars.

Started by whom?

Case closed then. Fine chap that Nappy.

Wonder how he would have fared at the Nuremberg trials?

Edit: I do find it wonderful that Nappy's supporters are seemingly as fired up as his detractors to write about the man.

The fact that folks still get upset when he's dissed is delightful.

Bob

If you are not a Nappy supporter then the remark didn't apply to you did it?

Why the name calling?

Nappy is often held up as some sort of Great Man when he was in fact as much or more of a bastard than the competition. On that we apparently agree.

So what is the fuss then?

Bob

BTW: regarding the Turks, "Re-read what I've quoted and what's in the links."

Isn't that the justification used by the SS at the Bulge?

Can't just leave them cause we might have to fight them again and we don't have enough men to guard them so cap them.

I rarely hear anyone defend Peiper on those grounds.

Would any other commander of the era done the same? What matter? We are discussing Nappy who after all is the one who did the deed in question.

Bob

Mention of the Pacific War is a good point.

Wars between participants of radically different cultured do tend towards barbarity.

In that light this action is less of a black mark than his having abandoned his army to its fate a little bit later.

"Wonder how he would have fared at the Nuremberg trials?"

Another case of trying to transpose modern values on different times? I wonder how Julius Caesar would have fared at the Nuremberg trials.

Napoleon was living in a world incomprehensible to the sanitised goldfish bowl we live in. He was an intensely ambitious man confident in his own greatness and determined to make his mark on history. He did pretty well as far as I can see.

Of course the POWs – who were promised not to be killed were slaughtered, after Jaffa, why not read the rather pro Bonaparte : Schur, Nathan : Napoleon in the Holy Land, London 1799.

But I know Bonaparte had good reasons as always, first murdering POWs – then leaving his army in dire straights for the glory of France and again in 1812 he had to leave them to look after himself.

What a hero.

Modern values: Well that's what we have aren't they?

Nappy made his mark on history. Agreed.

Hitler made his mark on history too.

So did countless others.

Should that make us like Nappy or call him a hero?

George Washington held slaves. Yet he didn't use a revolt to establish himself as ruler for life.

Why couldn't the Great Man of History, Nappy do the same?

I dare say there were many people alive when Nappy was who using the values of their time declared him nothing more than an adventurer and tyrant.

I have to agree with them.

Bob,

I have to disagree. I believe we have to look at a historical person's behaviour and mores based on how life was at the time. I think the fascinating thing about Napoleon say to Hitler is that a good percentage at least do admire him. Even without the outpouring of political correctness that would befall anybody so foolish enough to suggest anything good about Hitler, I'd be pushed to meet anybody who would suggest he was anything other than a rank villain.

Being as Washington led a revolution against his sovereign country I'm not entirely certain he is a good example to put up of non-revolutionary behaviour. Of course he does have the advantage of having won. Can you imagine what history would say about it all if we'd won instead?

Mind you, the USA is probably far better off without us! See our recession for details. ;)

Von W,

The reference to Washington was only to note that he was one of the few "revolutionaries" to give up the power offered to him in favor of a democratic process.

Napoleon took the crown and held it. In that respect he simply supplanted one monarch for another. That may be the expected behavior for his time. I simply do not think it praise worthy.

As a general he seems to have lacked a grasp of logistics. His overall record as a general leaves me rather cold. In an age when wasting men's lives was the rule, I just don't see anything marking him a cut above.

Wellington for all of his faults always tried to plan his campaigns around logistics. A very creditable approach in time when many others just "didn't get it".

In sum its not being a revolutionary, but becoming a despot that tarnish's Nappy.

Its not being a brilliant general, but a poor quarter master that stands out in his military career.

Which brings up a question I can't answer off the top of my head. How many other generals have been able to lose 95% of an "army" level command and still be regarded as one of the Great Captains?

A bit rambling perhaps, just my way of saying I don't understand what makes Nappy a "heroic" figure.

Bob

CATenWolde
'' I'm an educator and will try once last time …''

Child-centred learning?

''It WAS the opinion of some factions of the UK government and society at THAT time (and was not universal). They had very specific and self-serving motives for doing so (maintenance of their own aristocratic power base)''.

No. The British aristocratic power base was (as is pretty well known) farming and tenentry for the elder sons and the army for the younger.

''The British government of that time was also perfectly okay (on paper) with the idea that some people, by virtue of their being born of a different race and/or culture, were suited only to be treated as property rather than human beings – i.e. slavery''

Funny. The British anti-slavery movement (among the earliest in the world) began in the 1780's and by 1807 a series of anti-slavery legislation was being enacacted or formulated. There were no slaves in Britian…… Whereas Bonaparte RE-introduced slavery, meaning some of his own veteran soldiers had to flee France because of their skin-colour.

''If you have a chip on your shoulder about Napoleon (as you certainly seem to have), then just come right out and say it!''

I don't.

Old Bear
'' But you specifically stated he was 'good at killing'. Killing is something a person does personally, and as a rule is generally murder or manslaughter unless in war time''.

Or orders personally outside of war ('cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly'). Many of us are gamers – so I felt a very slightly blunter, but still correct term was justified by the objectiveness which followed.

''I can be far ruder than that without even trying.''
You can also be gracious and I like your posts. It was only the term 'emotive' I found innapropriate before I had had a chance to justify it with facts.

Cacadores,

You totally disaarmed me with that last bit! I do take your point about the precise definition of 'killing' when it comes to actual reality. Perhaps it's not quite the act itself but a direct order in certain situations is fairly close, although perhaps easier to do, akin to shooting somebody from 1000 yards with a rifle rather than bayonetting him right up close.

I think it's clear from how we Brits behaved at the likes of Badajoz that life at the time was generally valued less preciously than it is today, and things like a 24 hour orgy of rape and pillage following a siege were almost perks of the job, so to speak.

Old Bear
"Wonder how he would have fared at the Nuremberg trials?"
''Another case of trying to transpose modern values on different times? I wonder how Julius Caesar would have fared at the Nuremberg trials.''

Well: Murder was understood as murder then as it is now. You only have to read the commentaries of the time regarding the Duc in just about every non-French dominated European nation. There was universal revulsion. As it appears to Europeans now as then, western Europe in the 19th Century was not the Wild West, any more than extra-judicial killings away from the battle would normally have been tolerated by honourable officers or the civilian supporters on either side in the ACW. But Bonaparte became, after all, a dictator. I hope you take my point :-)

Condottiere
''link
Jaffa was taken by storm, like Badajoz, and in those days a governor who refused to surrender a besieged city, up to the last minute, would've expected no mercy for the inhabitants.
link
''

Interesting. So, how come Ladysmith in South Africa was founded in the 1840s by one of hundreds of Badajoz's 'inhabitants shown 'no mercy'….and how come Phillipon, governer of Badajoz, died in 1836, 24 years after Badajoz?

And in Jaffa, how can showing 'no mercy' to resisters apply to women and children killed days after the fighting…….. or to prisoners with bound hands who surrendered before the seige began….after the French promised not to harm them? And surrendered at Arce. Miles away form the siege? How can this justify knifing 4000 prisoners… some days after the fighting had ended?

Difficult, isn't it?

'Link. Link'

I think we've had that dodgy haegiographic web-site pointed out (and dismissed) here before :-) But good on you for trying it on.

Might we tentitively surmise then, that books don't exactly form the, er, mainstay, shall we say, of your research material?

btw, it's Napoleone di Buonaparte, not Bounaparte.
I hope those original British sources don't keep making that mistake?

Sorry dear boy for misspelling the Corsican Ogres name – for some reason the TPM shows the type face for these messages in about 4 point font and have been for about 5 days now. At my age my reading glasses don't cope well with it that small a print.

My basic point remains – the original British sources don't call him Emperor so don't see why I should either.

My personal opinion of the man is ambivalent.

If you prefer to call a long dead historical figure "door knob" will the history police beat down your door in the night and take you away for rehabilitation?

As long as we all know who he means what difference makes the name?

Bob

'Door knob' at least has a certain je ne sais quoi. Much better than 'Nappy', a diminutive that many of his fans seem happy to use.

CS : )

M C LeSingeDew
''A bit rambling perhaps, just my way of saying I don't understand what makes Nappy a "heroic" figure.''

Now come on: that's easy.

He controlled his country's press.

Cacadores,

That's a bit harsh! Hitler controlled his press as well as I recall and a fat lot of good it did him! I think we might credit the old Corsican with bringing a generation to life, albeit ironically on many occasions via the medium of death.

IMHO- one of very few great commanders- like Chinghiz or Timur. Personally he probably was losing his humanity fast while climbing the ladder. Biggest mistake- 1812…