"Why Napoleon deserves to be saluted " Topic
21 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
|
Tango01 | 18 Aug 2017 12:18 p.m. PST |
"Today marks 248 years since the birth of France's greatest ruler. But what was Napoleon's legacy on France – and the rest of the world? At first sight, Napoleon's heritage has been but twofold: first, he popularised the wearing of one's hat the wrong way on. His placing of the bicorn across his head rather than fore-and-aft was the direct forerunner of the wearing of baseball caps back-to-front, also adopted by unspeakably annoying people. Second, he made it acceptable for the shorter man to become a national leader. Both Nicolas Sarkozy and Silvio Berlusconi have the emperor to thank. In truth, Napoleon wasn't that small, not like Prince or Jimmy Clitheroe. He was some 5ft 6in, about average for a 19th-century Frenchman. (About average for a mid-20th-century one, too; when I first travelled through France, I increased the mean male height wherever I went by 35 per cent). If the emperor is thought of as particularly short, it is due to British propaganda. Our press created the illusion of a pipsqueak and, as we know, it's the illusion which counts through the ages…" Main page link Amicalement Armand
|
deadhead | 18 Aug 2017 1:23 p.m. PST |
Probably the best thing is that the poor chap, however tall or short he was or however inadequate anything else of him might have been, he has been gone for nearly 200 years. Yet his legacy has created a forum, like this, that leads folk to discuss calibres of artillery, facings of infantry and harness of cavalry of an era that would have been very dull without him. He was a little stout chap, with a very dodgy Barnet (Must explain…..even without saying why for Rebel Colonies….but in London a Barnet is a haircut…..) Sulky sort, who hated to be challenged, but he did run the show. Anyone who challenged him…..whew. I will not draw any comparisons with any current political leaders…lest I appear in this Dawghawse thing (is that the spelling?) I'll be honest. Some great model figures for 1795-1800ish and great credit to the manufacturers for their professional integrity and courage….but…..the figures were not there when it mattered….south of Brussels. Sunday…. I'd salute him. As I did when Gorbachev walked into our restaurant in the arm and a leg hotel on Corfu, with his minders. Mrs F and I stood out of respect and we saw the minders stiffen and scan us as we did so, whilst the rest of the diners had no idea whatsoever who he was. Not a clue…….. I would stand for Boney. I would not have to like him. I would respect his place in French history. The real challenge is this……there are leaders in history who are less acceptable, but strictly speaking, were once were democratically elected and promptly suppressed that. Would I stand for them? I am referring to Germany in the 30s and Hindenburg and AH obviously. Would I have stood for Mussolini or Franco? Did I get a Christmas card from de Valera? (Yes, personally signed in real ink and was he a total Fascist?) This was going to ramble on further but I have deleted at least two paragraphs and…thank God, for the period of grace to revise. God Bless America might summarise what I had posted. Anymore is not my business…. |
robert piepenbrink | 18 Aug 2017 6:50 p.m. PST |
If it was up to me, every statue of His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I would have carved on the plinth the quote that sums him up: "A man like me requires an income of 15,000 men a month." The brilliance and glory are all very well, but it doesn't do to forget the consequences of absolute power. And that's as far as I'll go here. |
Supercilius Maximus | 18 Aug 2017 11:34 p.m. PST |
Well said, Robert. However, it would not do to not repeat the words of The Duke (that's Wellington, not Wayne) when asked who he thought was the greatest commander of all time: "Of this age, of any age – Napoleon." |
42flanker | 19 Aug 2017 2:49 a.m. PST |
His hat was an anachronism, not an innovation. Just saying |
Tango01 | 19 Aug 2017 11:11 a.m. PST |
|
Brechtel198 | 19 Aug 2017 12:17 p.m. PST |
"A man like me requires an income of 15,000 men a month." Who quoted Napoleon saying that? |
Supercilius Maximus | 19 Aug 2017 12:33 p.m. PST |
It doesn't quite sound right, does it? |
Brechtel198 | 19 Aug 2017 1:41 p.m. PST |
Too many quotations attributed to Napoleon come from Bourrienne, whose alleged memoirs were ghost-written and from a man who had been sacked by Napoleon twice for embezzlement. Napoleon gave him a second chance because of past comradeship, and he couldn't keep his hand out of the till. Further, there is too much English and allied propaganda about Napoleon's character that denigrates it to Napoleon's detriment and that was done on purpose. It's too bad because it distorts history. |
Hagman | 19 Aug 2017 2:23 p.m. PST |
Stumpy little loser. Simply a footnote in more three centuries of losing. |
Gazzola | 20 Aug 2017 5:55 a.m. PST |
'Best thing is that the poor chap has been gone for nearly 200 years' Yeah, because the world saw peace after his fall, right, well, apart from the Crimean War, Boer War, Zulu War, First World War, Second World War, Korea….LOL And a better plinth to go with any statue would be 'The man Britain feared and turned other nations into mere mercenaries by funding them into causing more wars against him.' Napoleon is part of history and that will never change, and he even has a period of history named after him, without which the names of other historical greats such as Wellington, Blucher, Alexander and Francis, would never be heard. |
Brechtel198 | 20 Aug 2017 7:24 a.m. PST |
Napoleon's greatest accomplishments are those that are generally overlooked. His political and social reforms upon assuming the office and powers of head of state are nothing short of monumental. Napoleon remade France as head of state, and many of those reforms are still in effect. He created and emplaced the Civil Code, fiscal reforms, established the Bank of France, restored the Church, conciliated those Frenchmen in the west of France and stopped the revolt, pardoned the emigres, completely revamped the education system in France. Further, he stimulated French industry and agriculture, built highways and canals, drained swamps, built ports established an office to protect France's natural resources, guaranteed religious freedom for all French citizens, and in general solidified and codified into law the social gains of the Revolution, which included basic civil rights. No other European head of state of the period even attempted such wide-ranging and permanent internal reforms. |
StarCruiser | 20 Aug 2017 8:13 a.m. PST |
^ Indeed. If he had not been constantly at war with his neighbors, had he not had such incredible ambitions beyond the work he did in France, he would be seen as a truly great leader in anyone's eyes. However, he did have too much ambition. He did love war too much and could seem to find a practical way to live in peace with Britain, or Russia, or Austria… |
deadhead | 20 Aug 2017 8:50 a.m. PST |
"No other European head of state of the period even attempted such wide-ranging and permanent internal reforms." Not of the period I would admit…but I do think one got nearer to achieving that aim over one century later. But I must say this, any comparison between Boney and that Austrian Corporal is just a bit unfair…….. I do hope that it is not often that civilised countries, that gave us Beethoven and his like, can go totally insane. No modern day nation would do that. Would they? |
Brechtel198 | 20 Aug 2017 8:51 a.m. PST |
It should be noted that Napoleon did not break the Treaty of Amiens. Nor was he the aggressor in 1805 against Austria, 1806 against Prussia or 1809 against Austria again. So, the 'incredible ambitions' comment is just a little curious. |
ITALWARS | 20 Aug 2017 10:49 a.m. PST |
because everything modern and fair we have in our countries was created by Napoleon |
Brechtel198 | 20 Aug 2017 2:02 p.m. PST |
No modern day nation would do that. Would they? Wasn't that said about Nazi Germany? any comparison between Boney and that Austrian Corporal is just a bit unfair…… Just a bit… The following excerpt is taken from the Introduction to The Mind of Napoleon by JC Herold, xxxviii-xxxix: ‘Certain external and by no means accidental similarities between Napoleon's career and that of Hitler have blinded some men to the far more significant contrasts. Unlike Napoleon, Hitler is likely to go down in history as another Attila or Jenghiz Khan. Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents. That difference alone should be enough to discourage comparison. Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor. Hitler extolled that dark, instinctual monster which he called the People and which Taine had called the Gorilla; Napoleon had seen that monster in action during the Reign of Terror, and he preferred to perish rather than invoke its power. Napoleon, when he began his career, embodied the hopes of same and noble minds (not least among them Beethoven's); Hitler began and ended surrounded by a handful of psychopaths. But why insist on the contrast? Perhaps there is no difference between them but the difference between the Age of Reason and the Age of Hatred. It's a substantial difference.' ‘Still, since great men have caused much breakage of late and since that breakage is becoming increasingly complete, the question has arisen in many men's minds whether the world would not gladly dispense with great men. Napoleon himself wondered about this. ‘The future will tell us whether it would not have been better if neither I nor Rousseau had ever lived,' he said over Rousseau's grave. But as soon as we condemn great men, we condemn exceptional men. Without great men, we have only mediocre men, and if there had never been anything but mediocre men, we would still be half-apes. It Hitler is to be condemned merely because he was not a law-abiding citizen, content with making money, raising a family, owning a car, and living and letting live, then Hitler should not be condemned-or else a Galileo, a Mozart, or even a Gandhi would have to be condemned too. Nor can Hitler be condemned as a great man, because he was not a great man. Things are not so simple, and men must be judged as individuals, not as members of categories according to the degree of their departure from a dubious norm. It is difficult to see how Hitler, as an individual, can be judged as anything but a diseased catalyst of a mass disease. Nothing positive appears on the ledger. Napoleon, on the other hand, in his historic action left positive achievements behind him. Unlike Hitler, he left Europe not in ruins but brought up to date. Even where his genius failed his purpose, its nature was such that it cooperated willy-nilly with the constructive forces of history; the unification of Germany and Italy, the spread of democratic liberalism may not have been in accord with his intentions, but they most certainly owed much to his action. And as a myth and a symbol he pushed back the limits of human capabilities. It may be a costly process for humanity to produce Napoleons, but if humanity should ever cease to produce them it would be a sign that its energies are exhausted. In order to turn its Napoleons to better enterprises than conquest and war, humanity first would have to turn away from war. To prove Napoleon wrong humanity must change.' |
4th Cuirassier | 21 Aug 2017 1:59 a.m. PST |
Chandler called Napoleon 'a great, bad man' and Hussey has commented that he is condemned by the absence of any vision of Europe or France at peace. He is the person in history I would most like to have met by a country mile, however. |
holdit | 21 Aug 2017 3:43 a.m. PST |
Of course comparisons with Hitler are ridiculous and one doesn't have to be a fan to think that. Napoleon left legal systems and modernity after him; Hitler left a ruined continent and the memory of genocide. For me, Napoleon was too bad to be considered all good, and too good to be considered all bad. He is a complex figure with both admirable and deplorable aspects. That makes him very interesting, and that's good enough for me. I'll let others do the worshipping and hating; I'll just enjoy the story he left behind, and sometimes think to myself, "What a great man" and other times "What a jerk". It's all good. |
Marc at work | 21 Aug 2017 3:48 a.m. PST |
Gave us the best wargames period by far. No interest in Revisionist history or in judging historical figures by today's standards. Great uniforms and a hobby sparked by this man. I doubt I would have been a gamer without pictures of the Imperial Guard in my Patterson Blick rub down book… Marc – at work, at home and always a plastics fan |
Tango01 | 21 Aug 2017 9:58 a.m. PST |
Totally Agree with you my good friend!. (smile) Amicalement Armand
|
|