"What Made Napoleon Great?" Topic

ruining France.

being resposible for one of the greatest disasters in a military campaign – 1812.

loosing 4 campaigns in a row (1812 – 1815).

his post mortem propaganda stories written in exile and blaming the rest of the world for his defeats.

creating himself as a martyr.

He won.

And his legacy lives on today in the legal system of many countries around the world for his "Code Napoleon".

Great?

1 One of history greatest generals as said in this thread despite his final defeats.

2 He organized many aspects of a powerful centralized French modern sate (that can be on the long run not so admirable, but were are are widely lauded, copied by "state control proponents all over the world).

3 post 1815 propaganda and use by many parties (just as de Gaulle still today) finding convenient to appropriate part of his heritage.

4 He was "excused" many of his wars as not entirely of his doing, pretty much in the spirit of the time (way way different from today's correctness) and as an heir of the revolution and its conquest.

loosing 4 campaigns in a row (1812 – 1815).

Actually there were five campaigns during that period. 1813 is divided into two-one before the truce and one after.

The French won the first one and drove the allies (Russians and Prussians) back to the Oder before Austria's betrayal.

‘Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents…Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor.'-JC Herold.

‘Napoleon's mind was the greatest the world had ever produced.'-Goethe.

‘Luck is the ability to exploit accidents.'-Napoleon.

He had total power. He had no opposition. (Unlike his stablemate Hitler he didn't have his Marshalls trying to kill him). He was completely unscrupulous and without any moral principles whatsoever. He was completely selfish and a consummate liar.
Most of all, He was incredibly lucky. He had this for 20 years when his luck finally ran out. These are all the things that Hitler had going for him too, when after 20 years, his luck ran out too.

he would not have made a heck of a war gamer. He would have been thoroughly obnoxious, a shameless and bare-faced cheat and no one would have invited him to a game because he was the type of person who had to be the center of attention,-- the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral.

The only different between tyrants and those criminals who commit class A felonies is that it takes an army to destroy them. Nothing revisionist about it. It's called human decency and a sense of morality. That you cannot distinguish between a bloody tyrant and Marlborough or Eisenhower is your problem not mine.

There are two responses suitable for the above tirade:
First, you are extremely lucky to have met Napoleon and to have known him so well personally in order to make those type of statements about his character,

And,

Second, you have no idea what you are talking about and are only displaying your ignorance about Napoleon's character and personality as well as anything sensible on the period.

So, which one is correct?

Lastly, there were multiple assassination attempts on Napoleon while he was First Consul, from Bourbon plots, the plotters having the support of the British.

Hitler created the Reichs protectorate of Poland, or whatever it was called. Occupied Northern France, and created the satellite states of Slovakai and several others others out of the rump of Checkoslovakia. Mostly in the same area of Europe. All of them were swept away once he was dumped down the garbage chute of history. Any low gangster can terrorize the neighborhood into paying him protection money. He simply organizes his crime, as Napoleon did. Call it respect, call it ability, call it ruthlessness. Call it what you want. It's crime. The local dry cleaner, or grocery store owner doesn't ask to be forced to pay protection money.

None of those compare with Napoleonic France or the Grande Empire created by Napoleon. If you actually believe that they do, in addition to the ridiculous analogy with Hitler, then you have neither studied the period in detail and you have undoubtedly paid to much attention to the British and allied propaganda of the period.

The comparison of Hitler to Napoleon is a great insult to the latter and a definite compliment to the former. Napoleon granted basic civil rights, abolished feudalism, granted freedom of worship, and built roads, harbors, encouraged manufacturing and agriculture. Napoleon did not persecute ethnic groups and put them into concentration and death camps, exterminating 11 million people. Hitler was a madman, Napoleon was not.

If you would like a listing of credible sources regarding Napoleon and his achievements, the civil to my mind being greater than the military, I would be more than happy to supply you with one.

Copenhagen was a military action. Nelson did not change borders, unroot indigenous societies and organize people so they could be mulcted of everything they had for the benefit of a foreign power. It was a military action pure and simple. He did not attempt to change a peoples way of life to suit his own will.

It was an unprovoked attack against a neutral nation.
And the second time it happened in 1807 was another unprovoked attack against the same neutral which this time included a terror bombardment against Copenhagen while being besieged in order to force a surrender by the Danes. So, how do you explain that one away?

And Napoleon never ordered or conducted a terror bombing of any city.

‘Creator of the Confederation of the Rhine'
Which was effective only as an organization to provide the Grande Armee with a pool of trained soldiers at low cost.
‘organized northern Italy into an effective kingdom under excellent administration'
Again, what he organized was an effective system of explotation of the Italian resources in favor of France's interests.
‘creator of the Duchy of Warsaw'
See above
‘architect of the Treaty of Tilsit'
Which put the basis for the conflict with Prussia and Russia.
‘That doesn't seem ineffective to me…'
It does to me.

Effective diplomacy enabled Napoleon to create the Confederation of the Rhine, to which he generally left the internal organization and government to the rulers of those states. It was a military alliance for the mutual protection of the German states and France. The states of the Confederation were definitely afraid of being absorbed by either Austria or Prussia and turned to Napoleon after 1805 for protection. It should be remembered that Bavaria was invaded twice by Austria during the period-in 1805 and 1809, and Bavaria did nothing to provoke them.
The Duchy of Warsaw was created because the Poles wanted it and Napoleon supported them as Poles had been fighting for France for years. Napoleon, in order not to antagonize Russia, did not declare an independent Poland, even though Russia was actively attempting to ingest the Duchy before 1812.

Tilsit did not form the basis for the conflict with Prussian and Russia. Russia was fought and defeated twice (in 1805 and 1807), and Prussia declared war on France in 1806. Both countries were the aggressors in those years, not the French. Tilsit ended the conflict and the alliance with Russia turned out to be a false one, with Alexander failing to hold up his end of the bargain.

Longevity would seem to be one bench mark of effectiveness.

This is an accurate statement.

And if you take into consideration Napoleon's civil reforms in France and elsewhere, they lasted until way after Napoleon's final defeat and exile.

Napoleon's civil reforms and his transformation of France definitely outlasted the restored Bourbon monarchy-they were so firmly embedded in France that the Bourbons could not abolish them without further revolutionary ferment, which came anyway by the exceedingly stupid and careless way in which they ruled.

So, the longevity of Napoleon's civil reforms, as well as how thoroughly and generally thoughtfully, Napoleon's campaigns are studied, definitely are a benchmark of effectiveness.

Yeah. A leader who would get things done such as, say, building great highways and making the trains run on time. Now where have we heard that before?
Given the events of the last century, I'd have hoped people would have learned their lesson about leaders like that.
Personally, I'll take any amount of inefficient snuff-fiddling any day, given that the alternative usually means the constant fear of being thrown into some jail cell- or worse- for daring to criticize authority, for the colour of my skin, or for my political and religious beliefs.

Whomever you are describing, it isn't Napoleon.

He was a lot better at winning wars than he was at winning the peace.

Perhaps you could actually explain what 'winning the peace' means?

In so many cases he blew the advantages of a decisive military victory by setting up a peace that virtually guaranteed that there would be another coalition against him in short order.

And why was that? Generally speaking, it was because the coalition partners were scared to death of him and couldn't allow his Empire to exist as it threatened their own and their own territorial ambitions, which were clearly demonstrated at the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815.

Whether it was annexing foreign land, overthrowing regimes and replacing them with his puppets, imposing fines even on his supposed allied states, much less on his former enemies, or forcing them to raise armies for his use, at great cost to their manpower and treasuries, he just had a special talent for making people hate and resent him.

You should actually read and study how Napoleon formed his own government, how he treated his allies and enemies, and which states were actually what you call 'puppets.' As stated you clearly don't understand the period.

A reformed legal system is all well and good, but I'd rather keep my old legal system, if it means I can also keep my house and land, my son's life, and my bank account.

Napoleon' reforms were clearly much more than a 'reformed legal system.' You are merely demonstrating your ignorance of the period with statements of that type.

As for keeping what you have, sometimes you have to fight for it which is something too many today just don't understand.

'People who think of retreating before a battle has been fought ought to have stayed home.'-Michel Ney.

I have noticed that if anybody offers any sort of critique of Napoleon or his regime, you tend to react by trying to insult them.

" As stated you clearly don't understand the period… You are merely demonstrating your ignorance of the period with statements of that type."

Perhaps you should follow the advice of this fellow:

"It is too bad, a shame really, that a minority of posters believe that they have to personally attack those with whom they disagree. The use of ad hominem attacks, condescension, and mockery have no place in a historical discussion. And it reflects badly on those that do that type of behavior. and it isn't only on this forum that it happens."

Kevin Kiley:
TMP link

-and-

"It seems to me that if false accusations would stop, as well as personal attacks, then most, if not all, of the problems on the forum would go away. To make comments about personal qualifications on anything is just nonsense. All of us should stay away from personal remarks about anyone."

Kevin Kiley:
TMP link

-and-

"Your lack of judgment as well as common courtesy and the use of ad hominem attacks is noted. Instead of getting personal in the discussion you should stick to the subject. Making pejorative personal comments is an indicator that you are losing your argument and have to resort to petty schoolyard behavior. It is very safe to make comments such as those from behind the safety of a keyboard."

Kevin Kiley:
TMP link

-and this little pearl of wisdom-

"Perhaps if you didn't assume an adversarial relationship, the discussion wouldn't degenerate."

Kevin Kiley:
TMP link

-

That Kiley fellow certainly has a great deal to say about the need for civility on this forum. Have you ever considered following his advice?

The period is named after him …..

Ottoathome

No to you I'm afraid. I was referring to the 1807 attack against Copenhagen, not the first attack commanded by Nelson in 1801. The 1807 attack was an attack that resulted in turning a neutral country and possible ally at the time into an enemy, and was an attack in which the British undertook a deliberate terror bombardment of civilians. Previous debates on the lengthy affair also exposed the British of having designs to invade Denmark and make permanent bases there, which was only prevented by the protests of the military commanders of the attack force. Anyway, I don't want to get bogged down in debates over Copenhagen again. That subject seems to really upset some people, for some reason. LOL

And if you want to go on thinking the allies were goody goodies, and Napoleon was the only bad guy, that's your choice. It would be a very naive and biased viewpoint, but you won't be alone.

And in terms of thinking of Napoleon as Great, I do, others don't. That's life, we all have our own opinions and people should respect other people's viewpoints and opinions. After all, no one is forced to think the same and we are all free to disagree.

Garth in the Park

I think you will find that Britain continually funding other nations to wage war and form coalitions against Napoleon and the French, would go some way in causing a lot of the problems and deaths that occurred during the period.

How was what By John 54 said a personal attack? He made a joke suggesting that Kevin Kiley may have been "burned" by Garth in the Park's comments. It's not a personal attack: it's a humorous quip. (And I am pretty sure that Kevin has got thicker skin that to get "burned" by what Garth said anyway).

Just because Gazzola massively over-reacted – jumped on his high horse and fell off the other side – I don't see why John has to get canned.

I would answer you Brechtel except that you have already destroyed your own arguments by making a caricature of yourself.

Your style of argument is like a lawyer asserting that his client did not murder the victim but that the victim died of natural causes. "For what is more natural your honor, than to die when bullets pass through the heart."

And in all of this Brechtel you have not answered the most damning question.

"Who asked him to do this"

Which European nation said to Napoleon "Come and completely change around our society, destroy our sons, take all our money, ruin our land, pillage our farms, change our ancient ways of life and organize us like an aphid farm for your French Ants."

I have noticed that if anybody offers any sort of critique of Napoleon or his regime, you tend to react by trying to insult them.

If the critique was both fair and historically accurate, I have no problem with that at all.

The problem is that yours are neither. It appears to me that your criticism is based on both personal bias and a lack of study of the period, which equates to ignorance.

And it seems you have no idea what the word 'ignorant' means. These definitions are from Webster's Dictionary:

Definition of Ignorance:

1.lacking knowledge or information.
2.resulting from or showing a lack of knowledge.
3.destitute of knowledge or education; lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified.
4. resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence.
5.unaware or uninformed.

Unless intended, the term 'ignorance' is not a pejorative. If you lack access to materials on the period, I can make some solid recommendations of both primary and credible secondary works. I don't care if your opinions change, but then at least you can come to a logical conclusion instead of an inaccurate one.

And in all of this Brechtel you have not answered the most damning question.
"Who asked him to do this"
Which European nation said to Napoleon "Come and completely change around our society, destroy our sons, take all our money, ruin our land, pillage our farms, change our ancient ways of life and organize us like an aphid farm for your French Ants."

I would suggest that being attacked in 1805, 1806, and 1809 would be the answer to your question.

And, again, your posting above is the result of ignorance and personal bias, not historic study or fact.

Now, perhaps you can answer the question put to you?

I would answer you Brechtel except that you have already destroyed your own arguments by making a caricature of yourself.
Your style of argument is like a lawyer asserting that his client did not murder the victim but that the victim died of natural causes. "For what is more natural your honor, than to die when bullets pass through the heart."

The above posting makes no sense at all.

"Something less than a gentleman."

— Lord Cardigan.

Dear Brechtel

Far be it from me to argue with someone happy in his dream world.

What Made Napoleon Great?
What attributes made Napoleon so successful?

Wow, the actual question was the second question that a few responders gave their opinions, then it devolved into a moral discussion. I think it's funny that a few people read the question as why was Napoleon called "the Great" and I keep thinking about why was Pompey called "the Great" and who called him that. I guess you can't throw out a question that can be interpreted too broadly. We might as well discuss whether Donald Trump can be considered "successful."

2 in the DH so far and the night is still young.

He was a great judge of men.

"Something less than a gentleman."—Lord Cardigan.

James Brudenell? Really?

You would think that if you're actually going to quote from a historical figure you would pick one that was admirable. Brudenll definitely was not.

He was a failure as a regimental commander, had little regimental service himself, purchased his way to regimental command, and treated officers in the 11th Hussars who had actual service in the field in India poorly.

As for being a 'gentleman' himself, that definition was only of the narrow kind, based on his class and position-not by his actions at all.

"He won"

I cannot agree with this one, he lost the two most decisive battles in the Napoleonic period

Leipzig and Belle Alliance

He lost his throne

He lost his wife

He lost his children

He ruined France (before him a Superpower where the rest of Europe had to unite to have a chance to beat France, after the ruin due to Boney, France couldn't even take Germany on alone as the war of 1870/71 showed.

He won however obviously the propaganda war he initiated himself in his exile.

You would think that if you're actually going to quote from a historical figure you would pick one that was admirable.

I wasn't referring to Napoleon.

Far be it from me to argue with someone happy in his dream world.

I wasn't referring to Napoleon.

It is a real shame that both of you cannot backup with references and historical facts your positions on the matter and merely resort to ludicrous and disingenuous statements that do not raise the level of discourse on the forum.

If you cannot support your argument/position with facts and post only inaccurate sweeping and exceedingly biased statements, and when called on it reply with nonsense such as that quoted above, I wonder what your point actually is.

You have both demonstrated personal bias to a historical figure, but you both have failed to support the argument with any historical facts whatsoever.

Not at all Brechtel. I don't have to support a historical argument to effectiveness but the moral bankruptcy and to the most casual and uninformed obseerver. You are the one who has to prove his achievements dwarf his morally evil nature, which of course, is impossible

Hmmm, what were the odds of Copenhagen being brought up yet again by Gazzola…?

Anyway, this quote is interesting:

'As for keeping what you have, sometimes you have to fight for it which is something too many today just don't understand.'

I assume this means Kevin actually does understand and accept why Britain and other countries fought so long and hard against Bonaparte?

p.s. Garth – I can never see that name without hearing 'Fwashman, haw haw!'.

It is a real shame that both of you cannot backup with references and historical facts your positions on the matter and merely resort to ludicrous and disingenuous statements that do not raise the level of discourse on the forum.

You're not a fan of historical references when they don't tell you what you want to hear. I've learned from experience not to bother.

For example: when you got brutalized by facts on this thread, you simply vanished:

TMP link

Then there was this thread, where you cribbed a quote from Culaincourt but couldn't produce it, and it turned out to be from Anatomy of Glory, but you refused to admit it:

TMP link

Here's another one where you demanded proof, got it, then did a runner:

TMP link

Here's a legendary one in which you got caught cribbing from an English-language source, misrepresenting that you'd read the original, got it wrong, and tried to wriggle out:

TMP link

You did it again here, and were busted again:

TMP link

And this is the thread on which you claimed that it was a "myth" that any treasure was taken from the Confederation states, got fact-checked, and did a runner:

TMP link

Throughout all of it, you respond to every challenge with insults and rudeness. What is to be gained from engaging with you? And who in his right mind would bother trying to persuade you with facts?

Go on, push the complaint button again, and then piously claim that you never do. (And then another round of platitudes on what a "shame" and "pity" it is that others are so rude…)

I should just like to take the opportunity here to make clear that kudos is not the plural of a non-existent noun 'kudo.'

Thank you

Go on, push the complaint button again, and then piously claim that you never do. (And then another round of platitudes on what a "shame" and "pity" it is that others are so rude…)

I don't use the complaint button, or the stifle button. I don't see the point.

Are you now taking false accusations to a new level?

You shouldn't assume that others would stoop to the lowest common denominator which you apparently aspire to doing.

Throughout all of it, you respond to every challenge with insults and rudeness. What is to be gained from engaging with you? And who in his right mind would bother trying to persuade you with facts?

And what 'facts' have you produced and from which publications?

And your accusations should be tempered by your own disingenuous behavior on this forum. You're a hypocrite and accuse others of what you yourself are guilty.

1) A bloke who loses his Empire.
2) His country three times.
3) Abdicated twice.
4) Destroys his army that was one of the most powerful ever seen.
5) Suffered one of the worst battlefield defeats up to that point.
6) Failed in Egypt.
7) Failed in the Iberian Peninsula.
8) Failed in Russia.
9) Had a habit of abandoning his armies (at least Hitler stayed until the very end and had the decency to shoot himself).
10)He won the propaganda stakes from a little Island off the West coast of Africa.

So the likes of poor old Alexander and Frederick have to be demoted to enable the fat rat on an island shaped like a hat, to fit in?

Paul :)

Don't forget old Pompey.

Catherine….Peter… Charles… Herod… Xerxes…. Darius… um…

'If you discover how…[Bonaparte] inspired a ragged, mutinous, half-starved army and made it fight as it did, how he dominated and controlled generals older and more experienced than himself, then you will have learned something.'-General Sir Archibald P Wavell.

'You have to have seen the steadfastness of one of the forces trained and led by Bonaparte…seen them under fierce and unrelenting fire-to get some sense of what can be accomplished by troops steeled by long experience in danger, in whom a proud record of victories has instilled the noble principle of placing the highest demands on themselves. As an idea alone it is unbelievable.'-Carl von Clausewitz.

'They will talk of his glory
Under the thatch, for a long time.
For fifty years, the humble cottage
Will know no other story.'
-Jean de Berenger.

'Napoleon was truly a great captain, one who played a major role in the history and development of the military art. Few, if any, commanders, before or since, fought more wars and battles under more varied conditions of weather, terrain, and climate, and against a greater variety of enemies than the French Emperor. His understanding of mass warfare and his success in raising, organizing, and equipping mass armies revolutionized the conduct of war and marked the origin of modern warfare.'-Vincent Esposito and John Elting.

'[Napoleon] was a man for whom other men died willingly, whom the helpless dying cheered as he rode past; a man who knew the secrets of his soldiers' hearts, who could carry his soldiers with him despite the worst of prevailing conditions or future hopes. By the standards of his times, he took special care for the health of his troops, rewarded generously, forgave faults, shared hardships and danger, and dealt justly and patiently with the men in the ranks; yet, he could become heartless when necessary. The Emperor was a soldier's soldier, with full knowledge of every facet of military science and the art of war.'-Vincent Esposito and John Elting.

'…I am telling you that the Emperor Napoleon was a most contemptible person…but…should I hear the sound of the heavy drums and see the little man on his white horse, in his old and much-worn green uniform, then I don't know, but I am afraid that I would leave my books…and my home and everything else to follow him wherever he cared to lead. My own grandfather did this and Heaven knows he was not born to be a hero.'-Hendrik Willem van Loon

"A man has his day in war as in other things,
I myself shall be good for it another 6 years
after which even I shall have to stop."

And he said that in 1805…

And ballsed that up too!

Paul

Dear Brechtel

You knocked me off the chair on that one! Have you ever READ Van Loons lives? Of course not. If you did you would know how he despised the man and he was speaking those words only as a means of conveying human susceptibility to charlatanism. In the context of the comment he was attempting to understand his own grandfather, not Napoleon.

I prefer from the same work the words of Beethoven. "He was not a very great man after all."

Besides Brechtel, I would point out to you. NOBODY knows about Napoleon or even remembers him these days except the afficianadoes of atrocity, the worshippers of tyranny. Beethoven's music is with us today and has brought nothing but joy and pleasure to mankind. HE was a great man. Van Loons works are still with us today as well. If you ever read VanLoons works you would know how he hated him, and consider him, Hitler, Ghengiz Khan, and all the rest of the great murderers of the world as cut from the same cloth."

Napoleon today is known only as a shadowy figure a supreme egoist whose only claim to fame is to have a gooey fattening desert named after him.

But I will take you at your word and the quote.

You idolize and adore, worship and grovel at the feet of, as Van Loon said and you quoted "A most contemptable person."

Haters gotta hate. You do that very well. I feel very sorry for you.

Ambition + Ability + Opportunity

Two out of three aren't enough.

Fawners gotta fawn. You do that very well. I feel very sorry for you.

Idolisers gotta idolise. You do that very well. I feel very sorry for you.

Paul :)

Apologies Brechtel, I thought the quote was from Van Loon's Lives. It is from his "History of Mankind", which I assume you haven't read either. (You should, it's still in print). In his short chapter on Napoleon he lambastes him with all his crimes and calls him a reprehensible human being several times. There is a chapter in Van Loon's Lives which goes on in the same vein. In "Lives" he invites the major figures of history over to a dinner party, in the course of leading up to which he tells you what he is serving, a good general history of the figure, and then what transpired at the party. In almost every case he nails the personality of the character. My own favorite is the night he invites Charles XII and Peter the Great over.

In "History of Mankind" he explicitly states the case for the captive nations of Europe under Napoleon, which was little better than that under the Third Reich. The quote you put out is taken completely out of context by you, and Van loon is attempting to explain the allure of criminality and charlatanism, and self delusion.

I fully admit I am a hater, of evil men and moral degenerates. So when you brand me with that for hating Napoleon, believe me when I say you do me too much honor. Being branded a hater by the likes of you is high praise indeed.

Oh, by the way, I'm not sorry for you at all.

NOW Brechtel, I am going to tell you the story of a truly great man. Not a shameless liar and self promoter, a monstrous megalomaniac like your nappy god.

His name was Giuseppi Verdi, and on his own efforts and his own talent which gave nothing but good to the world, he was acclaimed a great man by the world itself. He produced many, many operas, and his music in all of them is beautiful. He was a man born FOR history, and in the age of the "Risorgomento" the "resurrection" of Italy in its struggle for independence had the happy accident that his name, "Verdi" was turned into an anagram for the struggle, for when someone wrote "Viva Verdi" on the walls they seemed to be praising him, but his name was an anagram for "Vittoria Emmanuele, Rei Di Italia." Victor Emmanual, King of Italy.

Verdi wrote some of the most beautiful music in the world, music that is still with us today. He did not ruin his own country and others (such that Van loon noted that when his great grandfather came back from Russia, his health broken, missing two fingers, and his fortune robbed by the French and it took the family two generations to recover). Verdi was an ornament to man and people thrill to his music even today.

One of the most powerful of his works was the chorus of Hebrew Slaves from the Opera Nabucco, (Nebechadnezzar), where the Babylonian captors berate and insult the Hebrews and command them to "sing one of your songs for us." Verdi composes for this moment "Va Pensiero" "Fly thought, on golden wings." To listen to this is to touch the sublime. As the chorus raises from a soft tune to a rousing, tremendous chorus it is the triumph of the human spirit of the oppressed, and the troubled, a song of hope, and it brings tears to the eyes. Theatrically the Hebrew slaves in that scene triumph over their masters. But the music has no bombast, no blaring, no self aggrandisment as it fades back and rises again. it is little wonder that it became in some ways the anthem of Italian Independence.

When Verdi died he had two funerals (one in Milan and one in Rome). As the funeral procession wound through the streets, crowds in the hundreds of thousands lined the street, with tears in their eyes, and spontaneously in tribute they began to sing "Va Pensiero." His passing was mourned even by his enemies, the former overlords of Italy, the Austrians

THAT Brechtel is greatness, true greatness, conferred by mankind, by history and by God.

I wonder why the Editor in Chief thought it would be a good idea to initiate this Thread? Perhaps he could share his own opinion as to what made Napoleon great…

Move along people, nothing to see or say here..Move along.

Make Napoleon Great Again!

Run Bambi,run!