"Should Napoleons Tomb be Honored?" Topic

I doubt the Germans venerate Hitler's Bunker.

Hardly the same in so many ways. It's up to the French, IMO

But they may venerate Bismark. It either case, it is a matter for the French people to decide.

That question is entirely up to the French.

Some Germans do, Deucey, which is why the bunker was blown up and filled with dirt, and I think the site is currently unmarked.

But what is "honored?" Does the current French government have a ceremony there? Do they vow to restore the First Empire and annex Rome, Saragossa and Hamburg?

I really would have thought most Western governments (and their allied "activists") had more pressing problems than running around trying to vandalize artwork honoring people not in keeping with the present zeitgeist--though never giving back the money they donated or the provinces they conquered. One might almost think they're using the vandalism as a diversion.

And how many miniatures will this discussion paint?

Deucy,

You must never have visited Les Invalides in Paris and gazed down upon Napoleon's tomb. link

Jim

Definitely one for the French.

"Some Germans do, Deucey, which is why the bunker was blown up and filled with dirt, and I think the site is currently unmarked."

Hitlers Bunker is under a car park in front of a nondescript block of flats now. Quite close to the Holocaust memorial.

Napoleons tomb is just fabulous though, a trip which should be on every wargamers list. It is a bit OTT mind….

In current media, much has been made of "the west's" recent trend at self loathing over our collective histories and perceived crimes. Colonialism, aboriginal genocide, economic imperialism, the patriarchy, white privilege, transcontinental chattel slavery, systemic racism, etc., etc,, and so forth.

To be sure, western society has changed the world. Not always for the better, and almost never gently. But, I'm not convinced this existential angst offers much of anything in terms of any kind of usable understanding toward a usable future. I cannot embrace the idea that pulling down statues will somehow confer enlightenment on those most in need of it. If we had done so 5 years ago, would that somehow have averted a Minneapolis police officer crushing the breath out of a man for nine and a half minutes.

While seldom a useful guide post on anything, I think Nietsche nailed it.

"The suffering are one and all dreadfully eager and inventive in discovering occasions for painful affects; they enjoy being mistrustful and dwelling on nasty deeds and imaginary slights; they scour the entrails of their past and present for obscure and questionable occurrences that offer them the opportunity to revel in tormenting suspicions and to intoxicate themselves with the poison of their own malice: they tear open their oldest wounds, they bleed from long-healed scars, they make evildoers out of their friends, wives, children, and whoever else stands closest to them."

Nothing we can do can change the past. Least of all demonizing it. We don't need a redefined past. It doesn't define who we are. We must do that ourselves in the present. We must cultivate a coherent vision for a workable future.

Screw the Ogre. Venerate him? Denigrate him?

Whatever.

There is a military museum at Les Invalides where the tomb is so why not. The whole Napoleonic period is one of France's few high points.

Easy answer: yes.

If Mongolia can currency can have images of Genghis Khan….

What was the spark that prompted this question?

DBDD

It amuses me that those most likely to whine about nations honoring past military heroes will, nevertheless, gladly sport t-shirts bearing the images of mass murderers like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro.
When you guys on the left finally admit that Cuba is in the present day a repressive and brutal totalitarian state, I'll listen to complaints about dead white guys from two centuries ago. Until then, pfffft.

Obviously of course
Signed a Napoleonic era nut who doesn't have a Frenchman in the house

The French honour Napoleon on the whole, so go for it!

"A Frenchman in the house" sounds like a seventies BBC sitcom.

If you were to ask the question in French, I am sure that the next agenda item for "le wokisme" would be to turn Les Invalides into HLM (habitations à loyer modique) for new immigrants.

Note : in compliance with the "no politics" rule here, please note that I have neither advocated nor disapproved of such an agenda item.

"The French honour Napoleon on the whole"
It used to be so, albeit not un-critically. I recall a rather nuanced treatment of his successes and failures being taught to us in the early 1970's. I wonder if his career is even taught to young students today, beyond re-imposition of slavery in the Carribean.

link

Bear in mind that modern France is a republic, not an absolute monarchy.

He was not just a military leader. He revised the French (and European) legal system and the government (national and local) of France I presume for the better? If not they would have reversed his reformed?
Any French lawyers or government officials, national or local, here who wish to comment?

A lot of misunderstanding here. Napoleon's tomb is not venerated, it merely exists, like the tomb of Thutmosis III. Hitler has no tomb. If Napoleon's tomb exists in the Invalides, it's because of the liberal monarchy of Louis-Philippe, a rather weak and ackward governement that tried without much success to bring together monarchy with the heritage of the French Revolution, hence the building of Napoleon's tomb in 1840, proposed by prime minister Adolphe Thiers, who would afterwards become France IIIrd Republic president. At that time, the legitimists were strongly against it, but notice that the British agreed too, after negociations, to give back the body of Napoleon to the French. In those days, most "leftists" except very few hardcore Jacobinists were supportive of Napoleon's legacy, in their hatred of the monarchy. Today, Napoleon's tomb is merely an ancient monument, an historical landmark, and is valued and appreciated as such.

I like this kind of usual english-speaking-comparison with Hitler…again a brilliant parallel between the jewish people under Hitler and under Napoleon is coming to my mind, while the english-speaking world venerate their own heads of states, US presidents or British kings or queens seen as genocidal imperialists slavers war criminals for many people around the world and even in their own countries…

Rouen 2022 last French napoleonic victory against the anglononsense-woke inculture

HMS Exeter

I don't think it is 'self-loathing', as you term it. I think it is right to reveal the other side of the story of our past, not just the war victories, Empire building and profit making.

But history is often written by the victors so is often biased and carefully selected. But since we can't change history, there should be no complaints or moaning about revealing parts and sides of history that some may find unsettling and might not want to hear about. This goes for all nations, not just the British, by the way.

In terms of pulling down statues, are you okay with a statue of someone who may have given money to build schools, libraries etc, but the money was earned from profits made from others stolen from their countries, dying or forced to become slaves. And who decided on which statues to erect? Did the general public have a say? I doubt it in many cases.

I think the more we learn about the truth of history and the other side, rather than just a biased one sided viewpoint, might help us question and understand many of today's (and future) problems and not just accept whatever biased propaganda some people want us to believe and throw at us.

The recent documentary A Very British Way of Torture (about Kenya) is a prefect example. It reveals the reality of what the British did in Kenya and how the public were only offered a biased and pro-British viewpoint. It won't change history but it might help us understand why other nations want the chance to air their side of the story.

Reminds me of a song from the old Muppet TV show about whether the name should be Istanbul or Constantinople, ending with the line "Nobody's business but the Turks."

Same thought applies here.

I doubt the Germans venerate Hitler's Bunker.

Always odd when someone on a forum where you presumably should do some military history reading makes this analogy between Napoleon and Hitler.

But then, there do seem to be quite a few making odd statements across the board.

It amuses me that those most likely to whine about nations honoring past military heroes will, nevertheless, gladly sport t-shirts bearing the images of mass murderers like Che Guevara and Fidel Castro

It amuses me that this amuses you. (rolls eyes)

Normally Godwin's law takes a little longer to express itself than the first entry.

There is absolutely no comparison between Napoleon and Hitler. To place things in context you can only judge a historical on their actions by the general morality of the period.

Note that does not mean we agree with what they did. So Western philosophy and democracy has its origin in classical Greece a slave owning society, but we do not judge Plato, Socrates etc. In fact we admire the Spartans at Thermopylae even though of all Greek city states theirs was the most oppressive in the way they treated the helots.

Now Napoleon was liberal by the standards of his time, whereas Hitler was seen by his contemporaries as a genocidal maniac.

It's all about context.

Normally Godwin's law takes a little longer to express itself than the first entry.

There is absolutely no comparison between Napoleon and Hitler. To place things in context you can only judge a historical on their actions by the general morality of the period.

Note that does not mean we agree with what they did. So Western philosophy and democracy has its origin in classical Greece a slave owning society, but we do not judge Plato, Socrates etc. In fact we admire the Spartans at Thermopylae even though of all Greek city states theirs was the most oppressive in the way they treated the helots.

Now Napoleon was liberal by the standards of his time, whereas Hitler was seen by his contemporaries as a genocidal maniac.

It's all about context.

I will attempt to paraphrase the introduction of a book I read 40 years ago by a Dutch author, I wish I could recall the book, bear with me…

"As I sit here in my study before the fire, my cat in my lap, I write of Napoleon's despotism, the calamities he inflicted on Europe, and the countless shattered lives he left in his wake. However, if I were to hear the drums beating in the street before my house and saw him on his white horse, I would follow him. My grandfather did."

I think you know MY answer to the question.

"In fact we admire the Spartans at Thermopylae even though of all Greek city states theirs was the most oppressive in the way they treated the helots."

And yet perhaps the least oppressive in the way they treated women, so there you go :~}

I agree entirely. It's all about context. The better, and more complete and nuanced our understanding of history, the better off we are.

Cheers,
John

I always assumed they put that giant rock on top of Napoleon's coffin to hold him down, and built that multistory gallery around it so observers can verify he's still pinned down…

Napoleon was no Hitler.

For me he is part of a 19th trend where major powers ran around taking away other peoples' land and valuables while committing occasional brutal acts against them. This certainly includes Britain and the US, where human slavery took place, Empires grew, and native peoples were robbed and eliminated. Pretty much no first or second rank powers get a free pass on this conduct during the 1800s.

In the next century, Hitler was another story. Only Stalin approaches him for systemic genocidal madness on a such a scale. And he obviously was the epitome of "bat s***" crazy on many levels.

+1 Parzival

My Dad visited the tomb back on the 50th anniversary of DDay. He was a WW2 vet and very disappointed at the amount of dog crap at the tomb. Paris is covered with dig crap, but evidently the tomb was really terrible.
He was very disappointed.
However, it's up to the French, not us! Who could predict what they will do?

There is a little controversy about Napoleon but anti historical "heroes" hasn't quite taken off there like it has here.

link

I admit that from time to time I've wanted to get a replica Napoleon hat to wear during games.

Napoleon was no Hitler.

No, he wasn't. But I wonder about a Tshirt's success with the Fuhrer's effigy on it carrying a speech bubble that says: "What about Che?"

You know, when I think of Napoleon, after the military brilliance and glory, I see the last man in Europe--almost the last in the world--ever to attempt to impose a new dynasty of absolute monarchs. It puts him in a class with Hereditary Absolute President for Life Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti and His Imperial Majesty Bokassa I of the Central African Empire.

And I see a cloud of smoke and ash--some of which used to be people--from Andalusia to Moscow, with an offshoot on Haiti. When people tell me "he was a modernizing, centralizing bureaucratic European" I do not think better of His Imperial Majesty. I think worse of modernizing, centralizing bureaucratic Europeans, and of those who seem to regard such as the summit of human evolution.

Let people honor what figures of the past they will, and I would not desecrate or destroy anyone's tomb. But "Hitler was even crazier" really isn't a great defense.

The outrage is always selective, no matter which side it comes from. And so is the honoring. If we condemn all practitioners of slavery and racism, we're going to cancel the history of the entire globe. What matters today is not what they did, it's what we decide to do. There is slavery going on around the world today, and denigrating a tomb does nothing to stop it.
Condemn China.
Condemn Sudan.
Condemn Cuba.
Condemn Venezuela.
Condemn North Korea.
Condemn Iran.
Condemn the Taliban.
Condemn the sex traffickers of Amsterdam, Thailand, Russia, Mexico, et al.
And so on…
After you end their practices, then you can deal with a bag of old bones under a chunk of marble.

No,Robert, but it was the OPs initial remark that started the Hitler thing.

Agree Parz.

He is a giant of History, good and bad. If the French want to venerate him, they should fill their boots and do so.

You know, when I think of Napoleon, after the military brilliance and glory, I see the last man in Europe--almost the last in the world--ever to attempt to impose a new dynasty of absolute monarchs. It puts him in a class with Hereditary Absolute President for Life Papa Doc Duvalier of Haiti and His Imperial Majesty Bokassa I of the Central African Empire.

It doesnt put him in that category. Need I remind everyone that he abdicated…twice.

Another odd concept that gets kicked around on this forum from time to time is that he is uniquely responsible for casualties during those wars. As if the other monarchies were doing their fluffy, goodly, legit monarchy things for the benefit of all their happy folk until that baddie Napoleon showed up and started killing people out of the blue.

Presumably members here gather to study military personalities, all of whom "killed" people in some manner or another which would make someone ask why anyone wrings their hands when they realize people die during wars. At least Napoleon had a relatively bloodless victory at Ulm.

Let people honor what figures of the past they will, and I would not desecrate or destroy anyone's tomb. But "Hitler was even crazier" really isn't a great defense.

Napoleon doesn't need the defense because there are no parallels except if you try to force them. Usually the people that make the comparisons neglect the many ways the two men were different.

I do like the way that the next post is literally a laundry list of "whataboutism".

List of wars 1800-1815 that didn't involve Napoleon or France (culled from the wicked podiatrist):
1804 Mtiuleti rebellion
1811 German Coast uprising
Afghan-Sikh Wars
Alexandria expedition of 1807
Amadu's Jihad
Anglo-Nepalese War
Anglo-Russian War (1807–1812)
Anglo-Turkish War (1807–1809)
Aponte conspiracy
Arakanese Uprising[5]
Argentine Civil Wars
Argentine War of Independence
Ashanti–Akim–Akwapim War
Ashanti–Fante War
Basi Revolt
Battle of Khakeekera
Battle of Las Piedras
Battle of Shela
Battle of Sitka
Battle of Suriname
Bolivian War of Independence
Brazilian slave revolt of 1807
Brazilian slave revolt of 1814
British invasions of the Río de la Plata
Burmese–Siamese War (1803–05)
Burmese–Siamese War (1809–1812)
Cambodian Rebellion
Cambodian rebellion (1811–12)
Castle Hill convict rebellion
Chilean War of Independence
Conquest of Hawaii
Coup of 1809
Creek War
Egyptian Revolution
Eight Trigrams uprising of 1813
Finnish War
First Kandyan War
Fourth Xhosa War
Froberg mutiny
Fulani War
Ga–Fante War
Gunboat War
Gurkha-Sikh War
Gwanseo Peasant War (1811–1812)
Hadži Prodan's Revolt
Irish Rebellion of 1803
Janissaries' Revolt
Janissaries' Revolt
Mexican War of Independence
Mtetwa Empire Expansion
Neapolitan War
New Zealand Musket Wars
Ottoman coups of 1807–08
Padri War
Paraguayan Revolt
Part of the War of 1812
Pemmican War
Peoria War
Persian Gulf campaign of 1809
Peruvian War of Independence
Punjab War
Quito Revolution
Rum Rebellion
Russo-Persian War (1804–1813)
Russo-Turkish War (1806–1812)
Sack of Karbala
Second Anglo-Maratha War
Second Barbary War
Second Kandyan War
Second Serbian Uprising
Slachter's Nek Rebellion
Souliote War
Spanish reconquest of New Granada
Stecklikrieg
Swedish–Norwegian War
Tecumseh's War
Tedbury's War
Temne War[1]
Temne-Susu War[6]
Tican's rebellion
Tonquin incident
Travancore Rebellion
Tripolitan War
Uprising against the Dahije
US occupation of West Florida
Vellore Mutiny
Venezuelan War of Independence
Wahhabi War
War of 1812
War of Christophe's Secession

Truth is that fighting is a Monarchic hobby, Napoleon gets condemned for what all monarchs did (including the UK) because he was better at it than everyone else for fifteen years.

Only whataboutisms which apparently some of the selectively outraged can't seem to be bothered to be outraged about.
But then, I didn't list past crimes by long dead people against equally long dead people.
I listed current crimes by living people (and current governments) against living people. Things happening today, right now, and collectively ignored by the people who only seem to want to be upset by statues, tombs, plaques and baseball caps.
There are REAL problems in the world and their are FAKE problems. Napoleon's tomb being honored or not is a FAKE problem— It's all symbolism over substance, devoid of any actual impact at all in the lives of real people suffering real abuse.

I have no issues with the French honoring Napoleon or his monuments. Just as I have no issues with monuments to Jefferson, Washington, Madison and even the Confederate statues and places with their names that exist. They are all a part of history. Put a Plaque beside his monument if you are concerned. I cannot be two faced about what I believe in.

Some Napoleon information from the article linked.

"Alas, Napoleon is a dubious symbol of the modern age. Macron acknowledged that Napoleon reinstated slavery, a notable stain on the record of someone long promoted as a technocratic, even liberal visionary who in between multiple military campaigns implemented the famed Napoleonic Code, which continues to be the basis of French law. Macron said the emperor's support for slavery was a "betrayal of the spirit of the Enlightenment."

But Napoleon did more than tolerate an accepted and existing practice. He revived slavery — an action that is very difficult to spin today. The trade was not again abolished, permanently, until 1848. Over the centuries France may have turned as many as 15 million of its involuntary African subjects into abused Caribbean slaves.

This action was not Napoleon's worst crime, however. Macron admitted that Napoleon "was never veritably concerned with human losses." That is a very polite way to put it. The Napoleonic Wars, a name that well captures the emperor's culpability, ran for a dozen years, from 1803 to 1815. No one knows how many people died in the seemingly perpetual conflicts — the truly endless wars of their time — but estimates range up to seven million. France, Britain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Spain, and Portugal each lost more than 100,000 soldiers, some multiples more. Total combat deaths probably ran between 2.5 million and 3.5 million. Civilian deaths were substantial as well, but the range of estimates is far wider, from 750,000 to three million.
That was in a world with about one billion people, which means Napoleon was possibly responsible for the death of a half percent of all mankind at that time. Moreover, the comparative total death toll today would have been much higher. There are roughly eight times as many people alive now. That means the equivalent loss today from the Napoleonic Wars would be about 28 million."

So Napoleon reinstated slavery. Directly or indirectly was responsible for the death of millions, also we have the Atrocities in Spain and the Tyrol. But I still DO NOT want his monuments removed. I wish some on TMP would have the same evenhandedness for US history.

Subject: Napoleon's Death at 200: How Should Murderous Dictators Be Remembered? | Cato Institute


link

Murvihill,

I have to disagree with you about some of your list. Napoleon's overthrow of the Spanish King and installation of his brother Joseph as king of Spain is the spark that set off the Wars in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Grand Columbia, Mexico, Peru. The Portuguese's court's flight to Brasil is the reason you can even throw in Brasil even if that didn't happen until after Napoleon was dead.

The War of 1812 was in part due to the British Navy which needed sailors impressing American citizens off of ships and the trade the Americans enacted with France. So you can include this war as due to Napoleon as well.

34thOVI

If we are to condemn Napoleon for 'reintroducing' slavery, an evil activity that virtually all other nations, especially Britain, had continued to employ, then we must condemn all those involved, including so called heroes like Nelson and Wellington. Britain ruled the waves and kept the slave routs open.

If I remember rightly, Toussaint Louverture owned plantations and Tom Holmberg's article from the Napoleon Series, linked below, makes for some very interesting reading. Nothing is as straightforward as some people might want things to be or appear to be.

link

link

As for Napoleon being to blame for the deaths during the Napoleonic Wars? Really. That's so biased if not an utterly stupid way of thinking. For example, Napoleon was only a general at first. He did not start the Revolutionary Wars. In some cases other nations started the wars, such as Austria in 1809 invading Bavaria. In 1815 it was the allies that chose war even though Napoleon had walked back to the throne without having to fight his way to Paris or causing any deaths.

I imagine for some people life might seem easier if they just throw the blame for everything on one person or country. That way you can pretend that the side or nation you may favour were always the goods guys and never did anything wrong. Reality is not like that and it is sad that some people don't want the negative side of certain nations or heroes to be known but are quite happy for anything negative about Napoleon to be heard. But I guess the world is full of hypocrites and sadly, ruled by some.

@gazzola don't know if you believe I am condemning Napoleon. I am not. I am pointing out things about the man. All men had both good and bad. Read closely my last paragraph. I am tired of all the attacks on historical figures, that result in the removal of statues, etc. Point out their faults, but also their positives. My point is many who condemn Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc., are quick to defend Napoleon, who had as many or more blemishes. I doubt their are many anywhere without blemishes.

I am going to stick with "History is messy."

Gazzola

If we are to condemn Napoleon for 'reintroducing' slavery, an evil activity that virtually all other nations, especially Britain, had continued to employ, then we must condemn all those involved, including so called heroes like Nelson and Wellington. Britain ruled the waves and kept the slave routs open.

Rubbish of course. You don't post any evidence.

YouTube link

YouTube link
YouTube link

Dibble, you should try looking at life without those Union Jack blinkers. You won't like what you see, obviously but better than living in a fantasy world in which you pretend your heroes or nation you favour, never had a dark side or did anything negative. They all did – get over it, man!

link

25thOVI
You are correct in stating that all nations and their favoured heroes had a dark and negative side. But some people seem to enjoy attacking Napoleon for doing what their favoured heroes and nations were doing, without condemning their own heroes. It is pure hypocrisy.

In terms of statues, I've always felt that perhaps military statues should be in military establishments, locations and museums, where the military side and their various skills can be appreciated and remembered.

And when people say certain statues should stay, despite what is revealed about their so called heroes, then I wonder would the same people be okay if a statue was erected celebrating someone who funded a Youth Centre or a library, for example, had they been known drug dealers or sex offenders?

I think people might be interested in knowing who decided to commission and erect certain statues, why they did so and who paid for them?

But overall, better education, especially at school, should be in place so that people are aware of the darker and negative side of everyone involved, so often hidden and people can make their own minds up who they sill want to see as their heroes or whatever. Knowledge is power.

@Gazzola

The whataboutism surrounding the Founding Fathers in the USA has no parallel anywhere else and it doesn't have anything to do with love for their principles but rather love for the social status quo. Ironic if only because you might read an argument that the living need help elsewhere thus why obsess over the long dead? Meanwhile them that believe that will spend unlimited time defending the dead to the Nth degree, often in the face of logic, reason and sanity itself.

Napoleon doesnt ask the French to live according to his morals today. The Founders, long dead, do ask us to live according to their enlightened principals.

Napoleon is interred where he should be, in a museum, he isnt on public school or government grounds like parks and capitol buildings where people need to do their official business or relax.

There are a handful of statues of Napoleon in France, there are thousands of Confederate and "Founding Father" monuments in the USA. Their involvement in slavery is offensive to some tax payers who have to see the official reminders of slavery every day.

I suppose Napoleon was smart enough not to bring slavery to France but it any case, he didnt own slaves, he didnt fight specifically to keep the institution going. Further, he is no more responsible for all the deaths of the Napoleonic wars than George Washington or Robert E Lee are for all the deaths in the wars they fought.

No one invokes Napoleon in France; here the Founders are quoted on a daily, cultural basis.

Anyway, this business about "you cant judge people by today's morals", a fiction created by think tanks, can sometimes ring true but definitely not when those long dead people are morally telling us how to live today and when it is evident that this argument is more used by those who are insensitive to the injustices of our past because they dont think it touches on them (Which they are mistaken about) or may even approve, consciously or unconsciously, of that legacy.