Tango01 | 03 Oct 2014 9:17 p.m. PST |
"Napoleon Bonaparte's claim to greatness seems indisputable: by 1799, just six years after returning to France as a penniless political refugee and junior army officer, he was both a full general and First Consul, effective dictator in all but name (his nemesis Wellington, by contrast, was then just a colonel). He revolutionised warfare, losing just seven of 60 battles and sieges and, as Consul and Emperor of the French Republic (from 1804), enacted civil reforms — unifying France's 42 legal codes into a single Napoleonic Code, introducing public accounting, the lycée system of centralised education, the Conseil d'Etat and public works — that still anchor French society today. Yet some historians still dismiss Napoleon as merely a warmonger, and not a particularly successful one at that. They point to the fact that the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars cost three million military and one million civilian deaths, including 1.4 million French, as if all those casualties can be laid directly at Napoleon's door; and they argue that he lost the battles and campaigns that mattered, including Russia in 1812 and Waterloo…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
gamershs | 03 Oct 2014 9:41 p.m. PST |
Yet his own greatness was it's own downfall. He tried to micromanage and would criticize his field commanders to the point where they would not make decisions. The first duty of any commander is to train your underlings to do your job and in the case of Napoleon he should have trained field commanders to win battles if he were not present. His enemies used his weaknesses and would not attack if he was in command but would then attack if someone else was in command. |
ochoin | 03 Oct 2014 10:34 p.m. PST |
Once upon a time, such an OP would have generated many, many increasingly acrimonious posts. How times have improved. I'm glad to acknowledge that N., like most of us, was a mixture. Being larger than life, his accomplishments were stupendous. As were his failings. |
von Winterfeldt | 03 Oct 2014 11:28 p.m. PST |
He might have lost only 7 battle – but he lost the Egyptian campaign, and the campaigns from 1812 – 1815 – all what he realized was already launched in the French revolution or he drew the clock back – he had his good days – but didn't know where to stop. He left his army twice when it was in a bad situation and ruined France. |
Solzhenitsyn | 04 Oct 2014 4:58 a.m. PST |
I kinda like the guy. Always thought that much, not all, but much of the bad stuff was written by the winners to make him look bad. As for France losing the wars in the end, I'm in the camp of a line from the show "Firefly" "It was the losing side, but I'm not convinced it was the wrong side". |
TMPWargamerabbit | 04 Oct 2014 9:59 a.m. PST |
Apart from France and some areas of Europe, Napoleon's Legal Code still used in southern parts of the USA (LA). A lasting reminder of his "other work" apart from the campaigns. |
Tango01 | 04 Oct 2014 10:30 a.m. PST |
It's used in Latin America too. Amicalement Armand |
John Miller | 04 Oct 2014 4:34 p.m. PST |
If I were French, living in his time, I would be an ardent Bonapartist. The more I read, the more I am confirmed in this. Thanks, John Miller |
tuscaloosa | 05 Oct 2014 1:42 p.m. PST |
Agree with John Miller. His faults are easy to see in hindsight, but his presence must have seemed like a breath of political fresh air, with promise and talent. And who opposed him? Royalists convinced of their right to reign by an accident of birth. Napoleon earned his position. |
ochoin | 05 Oct 2014 1:46 p.m. PST |
One aspect of judging Napoleon's legacy is the emotional response he frequently elicits. Even historians (or "historians") seem to have their views skewed by a 'love him or loath him' response. I've always found this a little strange concerning one so long dead. A sense of balance is surely the preferred option in evaluating his legacy? |
Tango01 | 05 Oct 2014 9:07 p.m. PST |
Agree with you my friend. Also, he has to be compared with people of his Era. Amicalement Armand |
Supercilius Maximus | 06 Oct 2014 3:05 a.m. PST |
And who opposed him? Royalists convinced of their right to reign by an accident of birth. Napoleon earned his position. Actually, he seized it through a mix of ruthlessness, military muscle, and political opportunism – much like the ancestors of those nasty old Royalists. He also remained in power by eliminating enemies, regardless of their political mandate, just like those nasty old Royalists. He also created a political/military system of government in which he was to be succeeded by his son, and whose ranks were filled with his own appointees, just like….. The greatest commander of his age? Yes, no less a person than the Duke of Wellington said so. A brilliant organiser and administrator? Yes, his legacy lives on in the Code Napoleon. A real breath of political fresh air – npt in a million years!!! |
Murvihill | 06 Oct 2014 10:35 a.m. PST |
One of the commonalities of "Tinpot Dictators" like Saddam Hussein is that they don't give any one suboordinate enough power to challenge them. Napoleon may have been micromanaging his marshals to keep the ones he didn't trust politically under his thumb. I didn't get the impression he micromanaged Davout for example. |