Brechtel198 | 06 Aug 2015 4:35 a.m. PST |
The following is an excellent article by French historian Thierry Lentz on the subject of Napoleon being a military dictator-or not… link |
Dynaman8789 | 06 Aug 2015 4:59 a.m. PST |
Since I STRONGLY disagree with the second two of his items I did not read any further. The author was stacking the deck in his favor with those. |
Guthroth | 06 Aug 2015 5:19 a.m. PST |
I don't need to read the article. Yes he was. |
Gunfreak | 06 Aug 2015 5:34 a.m. PST |
Well yes, duh. not the worst dictator i history, not the best. |
John Armatys | 06 Aug 2015 5:36 a.m. PST |
Much depends on the definition of "dictator"! Lentz's definition is very restricted – I particularly struggle with "A dictatorship is installed and kept in power by force" and "A dictatorship is not seen as a legitimate political structure by the majority of its citizens". I tend to use Cassell's English Dictionary (1968 edition) – under which Napoleon was certainly a dictator. |
Iceblock | 06 Aug 2015 5:37 a.m. PST |
link Yup!!! Dictator link As usual some twist it to there own way of thinking. no Surprise |
Frederick | 06 Aug 2015 5:38 a.m. PST |
With all due respect to Encyclopedia Britannica lots of dictators have enjoyed the support of their populations And while Napoleon may have been a dictator he also provided France with its first government to remotely respond to the needs of the people in a millenium |
Bernhard Rauch | 06 Aug 2015 5:39 a.m. PST |
By the technical definition no. A military dictatorship is more than the simple seizure of power by a military man. All important government functions are also taken over by the military. This was not the case in the First Empire. I agree with that part of the arguement of the article. |
JSchutt | 06 Aug 2015 5:42 a.m. PST |
By his definition there has never been a dictator throughout the course of history. Quite the Insidious strategy to establish a bogus definitions upon which to base an argument. |
Chorch | 06 Aug 2015 5:56 a.m. PST |
If Napoleon was a dictator, Francis II and Alexander I were dictators too, weren't?. As John Armatys rightly says much depends on the definition of "dictator". And the concepts of dictatorship and democracy are sensibly differents from s.XVIII to nowadays. Also in Roman old republican times there were "dictators". They were the same class of dictators than Napoleon? Seriously, it's very evident that, with a serious reading about the subject from various sources, for me it wasn't a dictator. |
Dynaman8789 | 06 Aug 2015 6:40 a.m. PST |
One other thing to keep in mind, although we usually equate dictatorship as being BAD – that is not always the case. There is such a thing as a good dictatorship and a very good argument can be made that Napoleon's was one of the best. |
doug redshirt | 06 Aug 2015 7:35 a.m. PST |
Who would you rather live under? Napoleon or Stalin? Napoleon or Saddam? Napoleon or Hitler? Napoleon or Pol Pot? Napoleon or Robespierre? Need I go on. |
Gazzola | 06 Aug 2015 9:01 a.m. PST |
I don't think anyone should ever relate or consider comparing historical rulers, especially those of over two hundred years past, to modern day rulers. They should be compared to other rulers of the same period. It is a bit like saying would you prefer the guillotine or the atom bomb? Pearl Harbour or the bombing of Dresden? Both the question and argument would be pointless. |
rmaker | 06 Aug 2015 9:11 a.m. PST |
No. The classical definition of dictator is a person put in extraordinary power by the regular political structure for a set period of time, after which the power is again yielded to the regular structure, e.g., Cincinnatus. The correct classical term is tyrant, i.e., a person who seizes power extralegally. |
OSchmidt | 06 Aug 2015 9:29 a.m. PST |
Doug redshirt says it all perfectly eloquently. Napoleon says it of himself. When evaluating himself vis-a-viz the will of France… "They wanted me to be Washington." And that is that. But I have to go back to Doug's part. Dictatorships are fun to watch-- from a safe distance-- like two hundred years and a continent away. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Aug 2015 9:36 a.m. PST |
Since I STRONGLY disagree with the second two of his items I did not read any further. The author was stacking the deck in his favor with those. Perhaps you should write a rebuttal to the article…oh, you can't, as you didn't read the article… |
JSchutt | 06 Aug 2015 9:40 a.m. PST |
If you lived under Stalin or Napoleon your life expectancy would have been very short. How many of the millions of dead would think they were a pair of great guys….and their deaths were worth all the gain? Both had too great a body count to justify societal changes that would have occurred anyway…. |
Toronto48 | 06 Aug 2015 9:47 a.m. PST |
This is a good example of 20/20 Historical hindsight when modern terms are used to describe past events The term dictator today has a much different meaning then in Napoleonic Europe The term "dictator", to them, would have had the classical Roman definition of a citizen being given absolute power to meet an emergency but who then steps down when the emergency is over Citing examples like Hitler Stalin Pol Pot, etc would not apply. Napoleon and other European monarchs were absolute rulers both by law and popular acclaim They were expected to rule and had the authority to do so. Some countries like Britain had some political control over their rulers but they were the exception Comparing a crowned head of state to a modern age dictator is not a fair or accurate comparison. Many people today get upset over events of past history when they apply current political and moral standards backward Yes many of the things Napoleon did would not be acceptable today but were acceptable and were normal behaviors then A hundred years from now, our descendents will be doing he same things to us ,depending upon who will be writing the history For example,if our terrorists win then they will be the glorious freedom fighters and founders of nations and not how we see them today So to our great grandchildren today's "war against Terrorism" could now have the meaning of the last vestiges of Colonialism and Imperialism trying to silence the will of the people Morally we could also be castigated for things like excess sugars and fats being given to children, the unethical and cruel treatment of food animals and the exploitation and misuse of the environment as a few of many examples. Applying current morality and standards to historical events may be fashionable but it is a total waste of time in helping us understand what happened and why The only way to do that is by using contemporary evidence anything else is not History |
Dave Jackson | 06 Aug 2015 10:08 a.m. PST |
|
CATenWolde | 06 Aug 2015 11:18 a.m. PST |
Seen through the lens of his own times, certainly not. He was an Emperor, and ruled as such were expected to. That he became Emperor and maintained his power through a balance of populism and military might is a tautology – it is what being an Emperor meant. That he did so though established and recognized means (albeit while riding roughshod over them at time) and bent over backward to legitimize his rule separated him from what they *might* have called a Dictator – someone who ruled by naked military strength alone. I think the futility of the whole argument is actually illustrated by the fact that the people of time probably had no interest in the difference between the two, unless used for purely propagandist purposes. These are the sort of arguments (on both sides) that people engage in to make themselves feel better about their own personal views, and are of very little worth otherwise. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Aug 2015 11:20 a.m. PST |
Toronto48-excellent, well-reasoned posting. Very well done. |
OSchmidt | 06 Aug 2015 11:45 a.m. PST |
It all depends on you. If you want to BE Napoleon, then he is a shining example of enlightened rule with the coercion of the state used only to punish the malefactors and malicious who dispute his in the next seat to God goodness and virtue. If you don't want to be Napoleon then your view is rather different. Toronto 48's post is excellent and is the standard position of most trained academics, which is you can't judge the past by the moral standards of the present. I said this myself at another time, that if the Puritans could see what their eventual descendents (us) were going to be like, they would have become Shakers and drowned their kids like unwanted puppies. If you could hear what people 200 years from now will say about us, you'd drown your kids like unwanted puppies. |
SJDonovan | 06 Aug 2015 12:14 p.m. PST |
I said this myself at another time, that if the Puritans could see what their eventual descendents (us) were going to be like, they would have become Shakers and drowned their kids like unwanted puppies. If I had said that once I would have tried really hard to make sure that I never said it again. |
14Bore | 06 Aug 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Could read it but I know the answer. Yes he was, don't remember him running for election, giving power up after a pre determined amount of time, having checks and balances on his time in office, had full power over subjects for life and death. That's a start. |
The Gray Ghost | 06 Aug 2015 12:59 p.m. PST |
what OSchmidt said, it's largely up to your personal view of him |
Unlucky General | 06 Aug 2015 1:00 p.m. PST |
Who could deny it? Coming after an endless line of absolute monarchs and surrounded by them, it's not remotely a biggie. |
14Bore | 06 Aug 2015 1:03 p.m. PST |
Ok I should have read postings above then went on a rant. That will teach me. Good reply Toronto 48 |
Herkybird | 06 Aug 2015 2:06 p.m. PST |
|
Winston Smith | 06 Aug 2015 2:11 p.m. PST |
A Roman dictator served for 6 months and then went back to his pasta farm. So, no. Napoleon was not a dictator. |
14Bore | 06 Aug 2015 2:25 p.m. PST |
On the other hand a some what contemporary of the Dictator was the leader of his country and did do everything I wrote. |
raylev3 | 06 Aug 2015 2:42 p.m. PST |
This is a good example of 20/20 Historical hindsight when modern terms are used to describe past events The term dictator today has a much different meaning then in Napoleonic Europe Spot on…even the monarchs of the period recognized Napoleon as one of their own, negotiated with him accordingly, and were willing to leave him in power as Emperor. Austria gave Maria Louisa to Napoleon as his wife, a traditional normal way to seal relationships among monarchs. At the same time, the 1968 definition quoted above does not apply to Napoleon. He was popular with the French people, with some royalist exceptions. At the same time, he established rule of law, certainly more so than what existed under the monarchy or the "directory." He established the Napoleonic Code which still forms the basis of law for many countries. At the same time, what separates the monarchs of the period from the term "dictatorship?" Not much, if anything. To close the point, as Toronto noted…we're trying to apply a modern term and definition to a different period in history. |
49mountain | 06 Aug 2015 2:43 p.m. PST |
Since we are now discussing the definition of the word Dictator, perhaps we should use the term suggested by Toronto48. Absolute Ruler certainly takes in many of the rulers cited above. If you think semantics is important, that is. |
raylev3 | 06 Aug 2015 2:44 p.m. PST |
If you could hear what people 200 years from now will say about us, you'd drown your kids like unwanted puppies. LOL…too true. |
ironicon | 06 Aug 2015 2:55 p.m. PST |
He was just a misunderstood artist. |
14Bore | 06 Aug 2015 3:06 p.m. PST |
Most Monarchs at this time were absolute rulers with many of the same powers as the Dictator. Few though commanded their military,Frederick of course being one. |
Dynaman8789 | 06 Aug 2015 3:24 p.m. PST |
> Perhaps you should write a rebuttal to the article…oh, you can't, as you didn't read the article… Why would I? I do not tend to read straw man arguments. |
Rudysnelson | 06 Aug 2015 3:44 p.m. PST |
Based on the political science dictionary as opposed to a common dictionary, there is a difference between the tyrant and dictator as an absolute ruler. Some would say by definition difference between a dictator and a tyrant that Napoleon was a tyrant not a dictator. Both rule in an absolute manner but a tyrant actually makes decisions with the good of the nation being considered. A dictator has only his personal 'good' when considering decisions to make. Napoleon conducted a lot of reforms including the Judicial Napoleon's Codes. A dictator never would have abdicated in 1814. he would have fought until the last town was burnt. |
SJDonovan | 06 Aug 2015 3:45 p.m. PST |
Not only was he a military dictator but he was also short and French. |
Brechtel198 | 06 Aug 2015 4:57 p.m. PST |
Why would I? I do not tend to read straw man arguments. How could you know if the article was a strawman argument or not if you didn't read it? And do you actually know or understand what a strawman argument is? |
Weasel | 06 Aug 2015 4:58 p.m. PST |
Was Napoleon's rule that different from any other absolutist monarch that was the norm at the time and had been established tradition for hundreds of years? Yes, he was a warmonger but that was hardly a trait unique to him though he was a lot more ambitious about it. If Napoleon is a dictator, what about the Czar? The emperor of the future Germany? The Austrian emperor? Hardly hotbeds of democracy and common rule, right? |
Brechtel198 | 06 Aug 2015 4:58 p.m. PST |
Napoleon was not a tyrant, the definition of a tyrant is one who does not govern by the rule of law. Napoleon did, and was a constitutional monarch to boot. |
Winston Smith | 06 Aug 2015 5:24 p.m. PST |
We are getting into L Sprague de Camp definitions. How about the Hereditary Usurper, or the Grand Bastard? We are throwing around the usage of Tyrant and Dictator as if they are inherently Evil. In Ancient Greece a Tyrant was just another form of government. He was not necessarily wicked nor evil. Nor was a Roman dictator. |
Iceblock | 06 Aug 2015 9:28 p.m. PST |
Napoleon was not a tyrant, the definition of a tyrant is one who does not govern by the rule of law. Napoleon did, and was a constitutional monarch to boot. I wonder how the duc d Enghien felt about that???? Oh ya! the man in the funny at had him shoot, no tyrant there. don't get me started on Italy. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 06 Aug 2015 10:51 p.m. PST |
First it`s "dictator" and "now constitutional monarch" – was HE really ? link "The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch. As a system of government, constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State's ceremonial and official duties from party politics. A constitutional monarchy also provides stability, continuity and a national focus, as the Head of State remains the same even as governments change." Doesn`t sound like the way "N" operated to me. |
Brechtel198 | 07 Aug 2015 3:02 a.m. PST |
I wonder how the duc d Enghien felt about that???? Oh ya! the man in the funny at had him shoot, no tyrant there. don't get me started on Italy. D'Enghien was found guilty of treason based on the Law of 6 October 1791: 'Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.' Italy sounds like an excellent subject to discuss, especially when Eugene was Viceroy. |
Brechtel198 | 07 Aug 2015 3:05 a.m. PST |
First it`s "dictator" and "now constitutional monarch" – was HE really ? "The ability to make and pass legislation resides with an elected Parliament, not with the Monarch. As a system of government, constitutional monarchy separates the Head of State's ceremonial and official duties from party politics. A constitutional monarchy also provides stability, continuity and a national focus, as the Head of State remains the same even as governments change."Doesn`t sound like the way "N" operated to me. First, Great Britains' constitutional monarchy developed to its present form over centuries of evolution. It certainly wasn't the same in 1800 as it is now. Second, do you know how Napoleon's government worked and functioned? |
ochoin | 07 Aug 2015 3:05 a.m. PST |
+1 Totonto48 Some modern commentators also like to loosely apply psycho-analytical terms to historical figures. This, IMO, is a practice to avoid. DISCLAIMER: no kids or puppies were drowned in the writing of this post.
|
Gazzola | 07 Aug 2015 6:55 a.m. PST |
And no kids or puppies should be drowned for what people may think of us in the future. So what if in the future they live and think differently to how we live and think now, we think and live differently to how people thought and lived differently in the past, including the Napoleonic period. That is history. And yes, Toronto48 is so right. We should always try to discuss and debate historical events with a mindset of that period, not as some people seem to like doing, from a modern day perspective, which is far too easy to do and totally incorrect. Using hindsight as a rule on how to think about Napoleonic characters is bad history. Will those from the future learn from us, in many cases I doubt it, considering human nature and the fact we appeared, in many areas, such as war, not to have learned from the past. |
Gazzola | 07 Aug 2015 7:00 a.m. PST |
OSchmidt I don't think anyone has to want to BE Napoleon, as you put it, to admire aspects of the man and his career. That is a bit like saying you have to want to BE Blucher to dislike him? |
Dynaman8789 | 07 Aug 2015 7:53 a.m. PST |
> How could you know if the article was a strawman argument or not if you didn't read it? By his very definition of Dictator. It was wrong, no need to go further. Done with this topic since it has now gone full circle. |