"Napoleon's Character" Topic

Since the two new Ospreys on Waterloo have been referenced and 'discussed' quite a bit, I read the material once again presented on Napoleon presented on pages 15-16 in the Quatre Bras volume and on pages 13-14 of the Ligny volume.

After all the emphasis on 'archival research' in these threads, I see none done here on Napoleon himself, although he is described as 'maniacal' in both volumes, as well as being 'convinced of his own infallibility, as well as characterized has having an ambition 'that knew no bounds.'

This type of characterization of Napoleon is reminiscent of the works of Schom, Barnett, and Dwyer, which present very negative viewpoints of Napoleon and remind one of the English and allied propaganda of the period than any serious research.

There are also factual errors in the sections on Napoleon. In the Ligny volume on page 13 it reads that Napoleon was the 'third surviving son' when in fact, he was the second, only Joseph being older. On page 14 of the same volume, the Egyptian expedition is placed after the Marengo campaign, when it preceded it and occurred before the Brumaire coup and Napoleon becoming First Consul. Further, Napoleon's reforms are placed after the Jena campaign of 1806, when in fact most of the significant reforms were done while Napoleon was First Consul and before becoming Emperor in December 1804.

It seems to me that if research is to be recommended for others, then it should be done properly first of all. The excellent biographies by Cronin, Roberts, and Broers all have the correct and accurate information and are also good reads.

Lastly, I am still curious why Napoleon is discussed as a French commander for both Ligny and Quatre Bras. Napoleon was neither present at Quatre Bras nor did he command there.

I have long been bemused by the rancour the man attracts.
There was a time, mercifully it seems ended, when several even sought to compare him to Hitler. That's about as nutty as the Fuhrer himself.

Even a cursory study of European history shows he is not unlike several predecessors who attract little criticism and mostly praise.

As a sample:
Gustavus Adolphus who in the immensely destructive Thirty Years War brought, "Bellum se ipsum alet" (Let War pay for itself) to a new pitch and visited death & destruction pointedly on Catholic civilians & often on Protestants both as a strategy & because he couldn't always control his soldiery.

And while I'm on Swedes, Charles XII who lost an army in Russia.

And let's not forget Frederick the Great who visited war on his neighbours, managed to position himself against an overwhelming coalition & only "triumphed" by sheer luck. Oh & let's not forget the several battles he fled in tears, leaving his army's fate to others.

Criticise Napoleon by all means: he was hardly perfect. It's the crazy personal nature of much of the criticism that I find distinctly odd.

This thread will possibly dissolve in a virtual mob, armed with pitchforks & carrying burning torches, baying for Napoleon's blood (& probably mine) so I will read more but this is my first & last post.

"Cronin, Roberts, and Broers all have the correct and accurate information and are also good reads"
They are also rather positive and laudatory of Napoléon. And hence "good" to read.

Who really cares so much about the reputation, etc. of Napoléon? In almost all games, he is not making the decisions, the player is playing the game. At most, he is a command model.

"I have long been bemused by the rancour the man attracts."
+1
"so I will read more but this is my first & last post."
+1

- Sasha

What the errors demonstrate is the not-so-accurate information supplied in the Ospreys concerned.

Perhaps you should take that in 'context'?

And then you have Cromwell who did less harm but is a byword for evil. History is indeed a funny old subject.

Cronin, Roberts and Broers are the wrong sources for Napoleon as a military commander.

I prefer bad reads of Napoleon – such as the biographies of Tulard or Presser who are quite objective about Napoléon ;-)).

Ney was the left wing commander and Grouchy was the right. Napoleon commanded the reserve. He expected that Blucher would offer battle first so it was obvious for him to follow up Grouchy for the battle at Ligny.

Napoleon was the overall commander and his interference greatly influenced the battles. This all related to Derlon's Corps not being in either battle.

Discussing Napoleon's plans and state of mind seems reasonable to discuss.

Napoleon was a gambler. They over time can become deluded.
Stephen

Ney commanded at Quatre Bras. Napoleon commanded at Ligny and was not at Quatre Bras. At Ligny Grouchy was the commander of the Cavalry Reserve at Ligny.

Cronin, Roberts and Broers are the wrong sources for Napoleon as a military commander.

The topic of the thread was not Napoleon as a military commander, but Napoleon's character.

I'm delighted that Ochoin brought up Gustavus Adolphus and the Thirty Years' War, a nice little conflict ostensibly begun over religion but quickly degenerating into the usual greed for territory, power, and dynastic issues while hundreds of thousands of civilians, especially in the German states, were killed or burnt out of their homes and farms. And right up there with Gus is von Wallenstein, whose character and actions certainly make Napoleon look like an acolyte.

And I have to agree with the original post, that if an author cannot get the basic information on Napoleon correct, doesn't know which came first, Marengo or Egypt, and hasn't a clue about Napoleonic reforms, all information my survey course students knew, then how much credence are we as readers to place in all this trumpeting of new research and new evidence?

the much maligned Wallenstein, did anbody bother to read the massive biography of Golo Mann?

Usually there is an outrage when Napoleon is compared to H, but to compare to Gustav Adolf – and Wallenstein – or Attila the Hun – is ok???

Anyone who relies upon an Osprey book for anything more than pretty pictures deserves whatever they get. The series is a very useful tool as a painting guide, but is notoriously inaccurate on the underlying history. Treated as a 'first look', Osprey isn't much worse (or much better) than Wikipedia as a leg up on serious reading into a topic.

Le Empereur's reputation cannot suffer any serious harm from an Osprey Publication, except perhaps for the 'crime' of dressing soldiers up pretty.

I've been reading Elting's Swords around a Throne. He mentions an incident of a women who had lost two husbands to the wars. She ended up getting two widow's pensions. When the authorities discovered this they cancelled one of them. Napoleon overruled them and let the unfortunate women keep her two pensions. It's a very minor incident, but to my mind it says a great deal about the man's character. He's running an empire and fighting most of Europe, yet he took the time the time to help a nobody. Hitler certainly wouldn't have done it.

You should read his correspondence and not Elting – for a balance read this :

"New Letters of Napoleon I (omitted from the Napoleon 3 edition) Trans Lady Mary Lloyd, London 1898.
This is a one vol selection from Lecestre's 2 vol collection.
I selected those that seemed of most interest when I had the book out of the library. These are extracts selected in relation to Napoleon's attitude to liberty, which seemed to be the starting point on this occasion, so they are extracts from several layers of selection. I have left out his dealings with his brothers, with the Spanish royal family, with the Pope or anything of a purely military nature.
Before anyone raises the question, I haven't checked on the outcomes, my point is only to show Napoleon's preferred methods of maintaining control.
To Gen Lagrange, Governor of Cassel, Warsaw 13.01.07
…."The inhabitants of Hersfeld appear to be guilty. You will send a flying column of 4k men, and have the town thoroughly sacked, to punish the insult offered to the sixty men of my troops… The town of Wacht is guilty. Either it will give up the four principal authors of the revolt, or it must be burnt…..
Issue a proclamation… Indicate the men each town must give up on pain of being burnt….Visible traces must be left, to frighten the evil–intentioned in Germany. It was thus, by burning the big village of Binasco, that I kept Italy quiet, in the year IV. …"
To Marshal Berthier, Rambouillet, 7.9.07
"You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. you will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and that I have required that the two chief culprits shall be shot….."
To M de Champagny, Min for Foreign Affairs. Rambouillet, 7.9.07
"… I shall refuse all evacuation until the two ringleaders have been shot…"
To M. Fouche, Min of Police Rambouillet, 7.9.07
" …..Give orders to have Mr. Kuhn, the American Consul at Genoa, put under arrest, for wearing a Cross of Malta given him by the English, and as being an English agent. His papers will be seized, and an abstract of them made, and he will be kept in secret confinement until you have made your report to me…."
" …to the effect that the nobility did not attend the ball given by M. Lamartiniere, Senator. (he asks for details and as to whether they were actually in Bordeaux at the time, since they might have been in the country.) If, on the contrary, any of these lordlings have ventured to fail in the respect due to the Senator, it will be well for me to know the fuglemen, so that the police may remove them from Bordeaux."
To M. Fouche, Min of Police Bayonne 25.4.08
"The Journal de l'Empire still goes on badly…..If he does not change his ways, I shall change the editor…Mons Etienne is the cause of the present agitation in France, about Roman affairs. Pray have all the old editors, who are so hot against the present Administration, turned away. … I had also forbidden the newspapers to refer to priests, sermons, or religion…"
To M. Fouche, min of Police Bayonne 11.7.08
"Have young St Aignan placed in the military school at St Cyr. You will let him know that it is my will. You will also let him know that I do not intend him to marry, till he has fought two campaigns. You will have him taken there bodily…"
To Gen Menou, Governor of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Aranda 28.11.08
"Maret sends you a decree which is not to be published till after its execution. Have the valley disarmed. Have 30-40 persons – those best known as having always taken part in former revolts – arrested, whatever their present behaviour may be…"
To M. Fouche, min of Police Benevente 31.12.08
"I am informed that the émigré families screen their children from the conscription, and keep them in grievous and guilty idleness….I intend to publish an edict which will send all youths of these families, over sixteen, and under eighteen, to the Military School at St Cyr. If any objection is made, the only answer you will give is, that such is my good pleasure…"
To M. Bigot de Preamenu, Min of Public Worship. Benavente, 1.1.09
"Let the Archbishop of Bordeaux know of my extreme displeasure at the sermon preached by the Abbe Langlade,….As to this Langlade, I have ordered the Minister of Police to have him arrested, and I will punish him in such a way as will serve to warn others."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Rambouillet, 14.3.09
"Arrest the Vicar of Noyon, who has ventured to make improper allusions to the conscription, in one of his sermons. You will have him brought to Paris, and examined by one of the Councillors of State."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Paris.3.4.09
"There is a work on Suwaroff, many of the notes to which are very objectionable. This book is said to have been written by an Abbe. You must put the seals on that Abbe's papers, you must have all the notes cancelled, and you must even stop the publication of the work, which is anti-national."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Schonbrunn, 26.7 1809
"I send you a copy of the Gazette de France, in which you will find another article about Berlin. Give orders, on receiving this letter, to have the editor arrested, and put in prison, for having caused several articles from Berlin to be inserted in his newspaper, the object of which is to cast doubt on the alliance of France with Russia and to offend our allies. You will keep the editor in prison for a month, and you will appoint somebody else in his place…"
To M. Bigot de Preameneu, Min of Public Worship. Schonbrunn. 2.8.09
"You will let the Bishop of Ghent know that am displeased with the manner in which he manages his diocese, with his weakness, and the small amount of personal attachment he shows me…I order his Vicar general to resign and proceed to Paris…. Because if once I put my hand to the matter, I shall punish them severely."
To Comte Fouche, Min of Police Schonbrunn, 2.8. 1809
"Have the editor of the Brussels Oracle arrested. If it is true that two Saxon women ventured to make a scene in the theatre at Aix-la-Chapelle, have them arrested and taken to prison, where they are to remain for three months."
As above, same date
"It appears complaint is being made of the bad feeling in Belgium. Send reliable men to collect information. The authorities must be weeded out, bad characters must be arrested, and 500 or 600 suspected persons must be sent to live in Burgundy and Champagne. .."
To M. Fouche, Duc d'Otrante, Min of Police Paris 27.12.09
".. those persons (Belgians) who might do harm to the Government by their fortune, or their connections, are to be obliged to come and live in Paris, and the children are to be sent to St Cyr, or to St Germain. Have the same thing drawn up for all the conquered countries which have lately been added to France."
To M. Fouche, Duc d'Otrante, Min of Police Paris 21.1.10
A more detailed order for sundry individual Belgians to be removed.
"You will be careful not to have more than two of these people sent for from their Departments, at a time, and to leave an interval of a fortnight or three weeks between the dates of their departure, so that this measure may not appear forced and extraordinary, but merely a regular administrative step.
A person who has been described to me as being rich does not appear on your list. Let me have a report about this."
To M. Fouche, Duc d'Otrante, Min of Police Compiegne 24.4.10
"Is it true that engravings are being published with the title of ‘Josephine Beauharnais nee La pagerie'? If this is true, have the prints seized, and let the engravers be punished."
To Prince Lebrun, Grand Treasurer of the Empire, the Emps Lt gen in Holland. Paris. 25.9.10
There is a FN which states that this is the letter as originally drafted but that N cut the end. It does not say where the cut was made.
"You speak of the complaints of the inhabitants of Amsterdam; of their alarm and discontent. Do these Dutchmen take me for their Grand Pensionary Barnevelt? I do not understand such language. I shall do what is best for the good of my Empire, and the clamour of the madmen who will insist on knowing what is right better than I do, only fills me with scorn….. I have not undertaken the government of Holland to consult the populace of Amsterdam, and do as other people like. French nation has been willing, at various times, to put its trust in me. …I hope the Dutch will be good enough to show me the same respect…..etc"
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Fontainebleau 25.10.10
"I see by your police report, that the blocks of a will of Louis XVI, which was being printed for a certain Bonneville, a dealer in engravings, have been seized in the house of one Farge. Have these two persons arrested. Write to the Director of the Censure Department to have their charter revoked, and that they are never to be allowed either to print books, or sell engravings again ; then you will have them shut up in a State prison, until the millennium. When the Censorship was instituted, provision was made for depriving any handful of wretches who might attempt to disturb the public peace, of all right either to print or to sell books. Send me a statement of the booksellers and printers who are known to be evilly inclined, and cannot be depended upon, so that I may revoke their licence. Follow this up vigorously; it is time to make an end of it. There can be no greater crime than that committed by these people."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 14.4.11
"I send you a letter from Gen Molitor, let the grand Treasurer know that the measures taken are too feeble, that the students and townsmen of Utrecht, who have insulted the patrols, must be arrested forthwith, and tried by a military court."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 18.3.11
Concerning several priests, reported to be "dissidents and enemies of the Government."
"I should wish all these people to be arrested at once, the seals put upon their papers, and they themselves brought, without any one knowing where they are, either to Vincennes, or to some other State prison. All their papers should be sent to Paris, where they must be examined.
…You must not trust either the Prefects, or the Justices of the Peace, nor the local gendarmes, but you must employ Paris police agents, and good picked non-commissioned officers of the Gendarmerie, who will proceed simultaneously to all the places where these priests are to be found, and seize their persons."
To Pr Lebrun, Grand Treasurer of the Empire, the Emps Lt gen in Holland. St cloud, 3.5.11
"It is my intention that the 500 men who formed the mob which beat the Prefect, shall all be sent to France, and forced to serve in my ports….The houses of the persons who have taken flight must be burnt, their relations arrested, their goods confiscated, and they themselves condemned to death by default, in a military court. It is necessary to have several of the most guilty shot….Blood and chastisement alone can wash out the insult offered to the government."
To Savary on the same dates he specifies: "…their fathers, mothers, wives, brothers and sisters imprisoned…"
To Pr Le brun, Grand Treasurer of the Empire, the Emps Lt gen in Holland. St cloud, 12.5.11
"I hear you have altered your late decision, on the occasion of the riots in Amsterdam, and that you brought the persons implicated in the affair before the civil courts. … You may have taken the initiative in a momenty of confusion, but this particular course having been approved by me, you cannot return to it without my consent…"
As above, same subject, 20.5.11
"It is indispensable that honest and well intentioned people should be protected, and led by kindly treatment; but the rabble must be driven by terror….Sedition mongers go unpunished, and in the end, they will have to be suppressed by fire and the sword. And further, I cannot leave my armies in the interior of the country for ever.
…The rioters at Amstrdam and Rotterdam must therefore be sentenced by military court."
As above, same subject, 22.6.11
"I have been interested in seeing the result of the military inquiries, and that three men have been sentenced to death and executed. There is no other way of overawing the mob."
To Comte de Montalivet, min of the Interior. Trianon 19.7.11
"It is necessary for you to give the Director-general of the Department of Literature orders not to allow any work on ecclesiastical affairs to be printed. The great art in such matters is never to mention them. I have been distressed by the pamphlets which have appeared on such subjects."
To M Maret, Duc de bassano, min for Foreign Affairs Paris, 29.2.12
"…My Minister at Cassel must let it be known, that I am exceedingly displeased with the town of Brunswick, and that the very next time the town is guilty of an offence, I shall put it beyond the pale of my protection, and have so severe an example made of it, that the posterity of the inhabitants will remember it, a hundred years hence."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Paris 30.3.13
"I confess I could not help being very much astonished by the play yesterday…I had a right to expect that the Minister of Police would not have allowed the Court to be handled in so dull and silly a fashion….Never have people been allowed, in any country, so to depreciate the Court. If it had not been for its clumsiness, and lack of talent, the play would have had a most mischievous effect on public opinion…Put a stop to the performances of this wretched comedy, and alter the composition of your Board of Censors."
To Gen Savary, Duc de Rovigo, Min of Police Dresden,6.8.13
"You will have the Director of the Seminary (Ghent) who professes such bad principles, arrested and confined in a State prison, without anyone being aware of his whereabouts."
To prince Cambaceres, Grand chancellor of the Empire. Dresden, 14.8.13.
Relating to "the verdict of the the Brussels Court of Assizes." "You will also send for the Min of Police, so that before my intention is made public, the accused persons may have been re arrested, and the jurymen who are implicated, seized. My letter will not be inserted into the Moniteur, and the decree submitted to the Senate, until three or four days afterwards…the Minisrtr of Police will be one of the members of the Secret Council, and take the intitiative in the whole of this business. Extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary measures, and they are provided for in our Constitution."
"

Pasted and copies from napoleon-series.org

On one hand N states humanly in front of the public that torture and information gained on tortures is useless – on the other hand he just advocates it :

"To General Soult, commanding the Camp of St. Omer
13th February 1804
(This letter was published in the Correspondence No. 7541. The lines there described as illegible run as follows.)
(…) Make the skipper speak, and I even give you the authority to promise him his pardon if he gives information, and if he should seem to hesitate, you can go so far as to follow the custom as to men suspected of being spies, and squeeze his thumbs in the hammer of a musket.
p.22
New Letters of Napoleon – Omitted from the Edition Published under the Auspices of Napoleon III.
Translated by Lady Mary Loyd, New York 1897"

Usally an outcry is created when N is compared to H – when in negative context, I miss the loud silence when this comparisson is used to positive effect to N.

I think the entire "comparison" issue is little more than historical laziness, and it is at best meaningless, and at worst a waste of time. Each individual, whether Attila the Hun, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick II, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, or Saddam Hussein, was a product of his particular era, culture, and set of historical circumstances that do not lend themselves in comparison to another figure a century or more later, or even decades later. I was lazy in mentioning von Wallenstein and Napoleon, because the two of them have little if anything in common.

With regard to these snippets from the "new" letters--not new at all but simply omitted from publication under the Second Empire, I think they are perfectly fine examples of a ruler's harsh treatment of the opposition, or of those whose actions ran counter to the ruler's idea of the public good. In the context of the times and under the particular circumstances, they are not unusual. I've known from the beginning of my academic career that Napoleon could be as autocratic as Alexander I, for example, or Francis II. However, he was also quite enlightened and forward-thinking in many of his actions, something which cannot be said of other European monarchs at the time.

I am quite fond of that last quote: "Extraordinary circumstances necessitate extraordinary measures, and they are provided for in our Constitution." I've heard certain US politicians say exactly the same thing, and I would imagine many a European politician has done as well.

@ von Winterfeldt- So, you're saying Bonapart acted just like every other monarch of the time? If that's your point, I agree. Are we then to compare Czar Nicholas to Hitler and the Frederick the Great to Pol Pot? Arbitrary use of coercion and brutality was so widespread in every country in the 18th and 19th centuries -including England and America- that it only became remarkable in the 20th. If torturing accused criminals and reprisals against political opponents makes you Hitler, then every monarch before 1900, virtually without exception, was Hitler. Kinda makes the comparison meaningless, seems to me.

I am NOT saying Napoleon was a nice guy. He was not what we would call today a 'good man'. I would not vote for him for any post. Unlike Hitler and Pol Pot, he was not a complete monster. His moral compass was deeply flawed, but he did have one.

"So, you're saying Bonapart acted just like every other monarch of the time? If that's your point, I agree. "

Yes indeed, he behave like any dictator of his time, I don't see any enlightenment, police state, sniffling in private letters of his subordinate etc. – it is N by grace of total power instead by grace of God.

'Far from being evil, Napoleon was naturally good. If he had been evil with so much power at his disposal, would he be reproached for two or three acts of violence or anger during a government that lasted fifteen years…His outbursts were almost always calculated. 'It is necessary,' he would say, when he wished to justify what he called his harshnesses, 'it is necessary; without that they would come to eat out of my hand'…At home Napoleon was a sure friend and the best of masters. His personal conversation was full of charm and originality. No matter what the subject he dealt with, he never failed to bring an element of cheerfulness to his observations.'-Baron Fain

Napoleon was a constitutional monarch, not a dictator, and he governed by the rule of law in France and elsewhere. Unfortunately, too many who read about Napoleon only read or accept what is written negatively about him and that is usually based on the allied and British propaganda of the period.

Napoleon was both a reformer and a lawgiver, which separated him from his fellow heads of state. And he must be judged by the norms of his time, not that of the late 20th and early 21st century. Unfortunately that is seldom done.

Did Napoleon make mistakes-certainly. Did he rule well-yes, he did.

Yes indeed, he behave like any dictator of his time, I don't see any enlightenment, police state, sniffling in private letters of his subordinate etc. – it is N by grace of total power instead by grace of God.

While I can agree that Napoleon was as authocratic as any other monarch of the time, I believe that calling him a "dictator" is going too far. Actually, it means to use a present day category to define a political system 200 years removed from now, which I find inaccurate.

Violence to quell rebellion and oposition was common in Napoleonic times. All monarchies -and the few existent republics too- retaliated with extreme prejudice against all perceived oposition to their right to rule. It wasn't a character trait particular to Napoleon, but a matter of policy.

It is not that Napoleon was or wasn't ruthless, but if that ruthlessness was exceptional compared to other contemporary governments.

Good discussion, actually.

"He mentions an incident…. It's a very minor incident, but to my mind it says a great deal about the man's character. He's running an empire and fighting most of Europe, yet he took the time the time to help a nobody. Hitler certainly wouldn't have done it."

Well, if you look up what Hitler did for his Jewish former company commander in WW1, it appears he actually did a minor gesture for a personal reason. But that's not really that important, often Great Men such as this (and I do not use that term at all as praise for Hitler!) know the effect this kind of gesture will cause.

None of the great Captains of History were "nice" people. Although many did good incidentally, their goals were not ultimately to do good, but to seek out and exercise power.
It's not really fruitful to judge them for their lack of what we would think of as common decency.

Define 'nice.'

I wouldn't want a commander who was 'nice.' I prefer competent, professional, and one who insisted on exact performance of duty, and took good care of the troops in their charge. And the last encompasses ensuring that they are well-trained, disciplined, and led.

I certainly wasn't 'nice' as a commander and I don't know any good ones who were.

And that goes for heads of state as well.

I think the Code Napoleon puts Nappy above the autocrats of his day.

Daddy Hill was nice.

To use the word "dictator" to describe any ruler in the 19th century is disingenuous, and another example of historical laziness, not to mention an example of not really knowing precisely what a 20th century dictator was, in terms of the 20th century.

and not only the Code Napoleon but also the reform of secondary education and the university system, making education accessible to more of the population, implementing new financial institutions and revising others--all those sometimes boring but long-lasting administrative achievements that one did not see elsewhere in Europe by other heads of state.

The Code Napoleon proves that bad men can have beneficial ideas, and wicked men can be capable rulers.

Von Winterfeld and I are in agreement, which I did not think we were at first. I think it is foolish to call Napoleon Bonaparte an enlightened despot or a kindly man, but equally foolish to compare him to the monsters produced by the 20th century. He was by no means the "Corsican Ogre" his enemies portrayed him to be; but nor was he the benevolent genius depicted by his worshippers. David Chandler called him "a very great, very bad man", and I think that assessment of his character is about right.

Doesn't mean I agree with everything he ever did or said, but from a distance of 200 years, after fifty years of reading about him, I have become an admirer of Napoleon, both as a general and as a man. Thanks, John Miller

I have become quite the opposite, the more I read, the more desillusioned I get, when looking behind the clever propganda stories, as general he had his very good days till 1809 but from that one his system failed badly and was not any longer up to the requited tasks.

Napoleon reinstated slavery under the consel. Sent French troops to fight against the slave revolt in Haiti. Did nothing to assist General Alexandre Dumas who died in prison.

Styling him as the prince of peace is too much. Look at his discregard for life.
Stephen

I agree that the sobriquet of "Prince of Peace" is a bit much--whoever made that claim? But to say that Napoleon had a "disregard for life" is equally specious, especially in light of the general disregard for life, in any context, whether military or civilian, evidenced by any late 18th and early 19th century ruler.

I also agree that the issue of quelling Toussaint L'Ouverture's revolt in Haiti was regrettable on a number of levels, but again, not unique to the French.

Still, if you wish to nurture disillusionment and concentrate on all the Bad Boney bits, there are quite a few sources that will help you along that road. And if you prefer to be a cheerleader, there are an equal number of sources of the Rah Rah Team variety.

I prefer the middle road, actually, wherein Naps has good days and bad days, both of which can usually be explained--not justified!--in the context of time and circumstance. But I suppose that's not as much fun, is it?

Napoleon reinstated slavery under the consel. Sent French troops to fight against the slave revolt in Haiti. Did nothing to assist General Alexandre Dumas who died in prison. Styling him as the prince of peace is too much. Look at his discregard for life.

Who has pictured Napoleon as 'the prince of peace' here?

I haven't seen that one. Seems to me you are doing nothing but creating a strawman argument, which is a logical fallacy.

Regarding Haiti, Toussaint didn't dissolve anything either. The 'former' slaves were kept in the same jobs they had before they were supposedly freed. And it should be noted that Great Britain didn't abolish slavery in the West Indies until the 1830s.

If Napoleon had little regard for human life why did he spend funding on building hospitals and orphanages as well as guaranteeing basic civil rights during the Consulate and Empire.

There are two sides to every story and every head of state of the period had black marks to their name, the others I would submit more than Napoleon did.

the thread is running the usual course – or should I say curse

How is this thread running in any "usual course…or course?" Thus far I've seen a variety of opinions, hot cold, and lukewarm.

So which ones are objectionable to you, von Winterfeldt? Those that disagree with you magically become objectionable?

Personally, I like to read opposite opinions--they are generally informative and often fun to argue with. If everyone agreed, then what would be the point?

Anyway, today is the anniversary of the first day of a serious Napoleonic defeat, which should cheer some folks up immeasurably.