Napoleon, was he that great?

[Incongruous]

Austerlitz was a very great feat of arms and silenced an Empire for Years.
However it could not counterwigh I think his greatest mistakes in the proclomation of 1808 in Prussia.

[Geoffrey S]

Defining Napoleon by his wartime miltary feats, which should also not be underestimated, is hardly the way to judge the man, the same way as it'd be inappropriate to do so with Churchill or Stalin. What he did was create a modern state from near anarchy, setting the basis in laws and borders throughout western Europe which has been built upon since.

[Fragony]

Question should be was he the greatest. The man was a genius.

[KARTLOS]

after costing ewurope thusands of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

[Fragony]

after costing ewurope thusands of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

Well he conquered europe, must be my more primal instics but I say that is quite an achievement. Read a diary of a french soldier (god was it terrible) how the people and soldiers in particular reacted to him, he was a force of nature that is rare. Besides his legendary military expertise he was also an icon, and what have we seen since him?

Damn you Spino you stole my point

[Peasant Phill]

I'm not particulary familiar with Napoleons' military skill, so I won't comment on that. I am however familiar with Napoleons' administrative achievements and I don't think that there are many that can rival with him on that aspect.

Some simple examples:

French and Belgian law (and probably others) is firmly based on that wich Napoleon introduced.

Napoleon suggested to his brother (who ruled Holland in his name) to use coins of the same size, worth and similar design as the ones in use in France to stimulate the trade between both countries. Can anybody say euro almost 2 centuries before its time?

[rotorgun]

While I shall not attempt to describe his considerable moral record, which was abysmal I daresay, I think that he was something of a genius. He had a great command of detail, much in the same way that Hitler did as well by the way, and he seemed to have an intuitive grasp of where to hit his enemies. He was also noted to be a brilliant Artillerist, for which he gained noteriety early on. I think that like all "great men"-his errors were monumental as were his triumphs. "Why he strides the narrow world like a collossus, and we mortal men must move about his legs to find for us dishonorable gaves"-Julius Ceasar-Shakespear

here is an interesting link deserving of a good read:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/resea.../c_genius.html

I think of a line from the film Waterloo, in which the Duke of Wellington (Christopher Plummer) comments after being surprised at how quickly Napoleon (Rod Steiger) moved on him at Charleroi. Looking down at a map of the campaign area he says "My God, but how he does war honor!"

[Mount Suribachi]

after costing europe MILLIONS of lives he ultimately achieed nothing and ended his life a hopeless failure. i have never understood why anyone respects the the dirty little midget.

Fixed.

He may have done some fine pieces of generalship earlier in his career, but apart from that he was a bloodthirsty meglomaniac who in the end got most of his soldiers killed.

I'll leave the last word to Dostoevsky

"Napoleon can storm Toulon, stage a massacre in Paris, forget about an army in Egypt, throw away half a million men in the Moscow expidition and then get away with a witty phrase in Vilna"

[Lord Winter]

Rodion watch judging historical figures by todays morals, Nepolean wasn't that different from many other rulers of the time if given a chance. They all wanted to expand their empire, not fight for freedom,

[Brenus]

“Napoleon's outward tolerance and fairness toward Jews was actually based upon his grand plan to have them disappear entirely by means of total assimilation, intermarriage, and conversion” Do you have any documents for these assertions? The first Jewish Noble is one from the Empire (Noblesse d’Empire)…

“This is what allowed the French Revolution”; The Feudal system in France was badly damaged by Louis XIV (remembering the “Fronde”, the revolt of the Height Nobility against Mazarin during his childhood in order to restore feudalism, or more precisely, to implement it more strongly) who impose the absolute Monarchy and centralism in France (even if local Parliaments were still working).
After the American Adventure and the fact it cost a lot to France for no gains (due to the fact that the new country did negotiate separately –against agreement- with the English), Louis the XVI was obliged by a Reactionary Nobility to gather the Etats Generaux where they hope to blackmail the King for their support against the Tiers-Etat in exchange of the reestablishment of their Feudal Rights…
So to date the end of feudalism at the end of the Middle-Ages is a little bit adventurous…

“Living at the end of the Enlightenment, Napoleon also became notorious for his effort to suppress the slave revolt in Haiti and his 1801 decision to re-establish slavery in France after it was banned following the revolution.”
Yes, and that is why I am not a Napoleon great admirer: However can you tell me when Serfdom was abolished in Russia? Yes, indeed…
I do think he betrayed the Revolution principles but I do recognised it was not always his responsibility…

”Napoleon is sometimes alleged to have been in many ways the direct inspiration for later autocrats: he never flinched when facing the prospect of war and death for thousands, friend or foe, and turned his search of undisputed rule into a continuous cycle of conflict throughout Europe, ignoring treaties and conventions alike. Even if other European powers continually offered Napoleon terms that would have restored France's borders to situations only dreamt by the Bourbon kings, he always refused compromise, and only accepted surrender.”
Right, and the others monarchs did… the Tsar, the Austro-Hungarian Emperor, the English Prime Minister?
According the Amiens Treaty, the English should have given back Gibraltar to Spain: They still there…
After the Russian retreat, “seeing the French almost on their knees the revenge-seeking Prussians broke their alliance with Paris”

“he couldn't handle that type of warfare very well compared to his opponents”: Yeah, right:
The 1813 Campaign through Germany saw a weakened Bonaparte fight and win the battles of Lutzen, Bautzen and Dresden, but the sheer weight of numbers caught up with him at Leipzig where some 200,000 Frenchmen took on 400,000 enemy troops in a massive three-day battle.
Just read about the Campaign of France, the Allies won because Napoleon just did not have enough soldiers (which, I give that to you, he lost by his bad judgement in Russia, being politically out manoeuvred by the Tsar…): Victories at Brienne, La Rothiere, Champaubert, Montmiral, Chateau Thierry, Vauchamps, Monterreau and Craonne had the Allies reeling.
“Despite being greatly outnumbered, Bonaparte was forced to take increasingly desperate actions and launched a high-risk assault on Blucher at Laon. He lost and then moved to attack Austria's Field Marshal Karl Schwarzenberg at Arcis sur Aube. Again he lost and, before he could reinforce Marmont and Mortier near Paris, the former surrendered his army.”

“Napoleon's war campaigns of rape and murder”: No problem and how the English did rescue the Spanish populations is a model of good behaviour…
You blame Napoleon only for what all armies at the time did

I have to go, I will come back, sorry...

[Spino]

Rather than read Robert Harvey, a relatively new author to the crowded Napoleonic scene who may be looking to make a name for himself by resorting to the usual Bonaparte bashing you might want to read a few books by David Chandler, an historian who is widely considered to be one of the few experts on Napoleon.

I have to agree with the 'Napoleon was a nigh genius/genius' crowd. When Napoleon was on top of his game he was almost untouchable.

The problem with saying that some of Napoleon's ablest Marshals were on par with their emperor is that some of them they truly were, at least in some aspects, on par with Napoleon. Once the reforms of the Revolution took place the French army became a meritocratic machine that produced the best officers and non-commissioned officers of that era. "A (marshal's) baton in every backpack" was a popular term in the French army of that period. Desaix was considered a true peer and rival of Napoloen and might have gone on to become Consul had he not been killed at the battle of Marengo. Davout, although he hailed not from poor or bourgeois beginnings but from 'landless' nobility, is considered by most military historians to be Napoleon's best Marshal and possessed a knack for martial, administrative and intelligence gathering matters that rivaled Napoleon's. Suchet and Lannes were also extremely capable and effective Marshals whose talents and skills were quite numerous

Looking purely at Napoleon's military endeavors keep in mind it took the combined efforts of the major powers of Europe to bring the man down... and this was accomplished in no small part thanks to Napoleon's mammoth ego that ultimately superseded his genius and lay the groundwork for the disasters that led to his eventual downfall.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Question should be was he the greatest. The man was a genius.

Normally, a genius has associated with him a number of great achievements. Newton making his models of physics and progress within the field of calculus, and Leonardo da Vinci essentially invented everything that was invented in the coming 300 years after his death. Aristotle wrote down the rules of logic, and Sun Tzu summarized the most important knowledge about warfare. But - what great feat did Napoleon do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:F...ientes_023.jpg
http://www.marxist.com/images/storie...eat_moscow.jpg
http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/How...C12180863.jpeg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:B...8_brumaire.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Im...ial_throne.jpg

[Geoffrey S]

I think a key issue is that people focus on how much he lost; more important in my opinion is that he had actually managed to gain that much in the first place. The fact that he was surrounded by so many able men comparable in military skill to himself I'd say is more positive than some make out: clearly he was doing something right if he was keeping them going in the same direction, keeping them loyal, and using them effectively. That must have required qite some respect and skill.

But - what great feat did Napoleon do?

He remade Europe into what we see today, for a start.

[Rodion Romanovich]

I think a key issue is that people focus on how much he lost; more important in my opinion is that he had actually managed to gain that much in the first place.

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law, and chances of achievments and self-fulfillment in life not depending on how rich your parents were.

The fact that he was surrounded by so many able men comparable in military skill to himself I'd say is more positive than some make out: clearly he was doing something right if he was keeping them going in the same direction, keeping them loyal, and using them effectively. That must have required qite some respect and skill.

It wasn't respect and skill, but scare tactics and propaganda. Propagandaic indoctrination at school age and at special military training camps. Telling them they were fighting for the revolution, when they were only fighting to satisfy Nappy's hunger for land and thirst for blood.

Being able to command people to do what you want isn't really that hard if you have come to a position of power. Look at such a total failure as George W Bush - almost the entire US Army does exactly what he wants because they are given no other choice.

He remade Europe into what we see today, for a start.

Hitler and Stalin also "made Europe into what we see today". Such a statement is not necessarily positive. All credit Napoleon fans give Napoleon really belongs to the Revolution and the people's fight for freedom and justice. Napoleon did not want to fight for these things, he wanted to fight. And to fight, he pretended he fought for these things and abused the trust of the masses while he was still too weak to be deposed of, and once he had deployed all the tools of a dictator to be able to terrorize and murder any dissenters, he went even more mad and backstabbed and invaded his allies in Spain and invaded Russia. And when in Spain the people revolted because they didn't like being raped and murdered at the whims of some alcoholized mob of French soldiers, he executed masses of civilians, using methods of occupation which clearly inspired Adolf Hitler during his occupation of France and other countries during ww2. Napoleon also inspired Hitler with his use of propaganda, his use of secret police and control over the population, and with his references back to ancient and Medieval times.

[AntiochusIII]

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law.

He harmed it in France; he brought it to Europe.

You seem to ignore the fact that Bonaparte's rise was set in the backdrop of constant warfare between Revolutionary France and just about everybody else. In that respect, Napoleon's military genius was one of the pillars which held the remnants of the Revolution together for as long as it did. The Old Powers were thirsty for blood and France's struggle was one of total victory or total defeat.

Being able to command people to do what you want isn't really that hard if you have come to a position of power. Look at such a total failure as George W Bush - almost the entire US Army does exactly what he wants because they are given no other choice.

There's an immense gap between a President of a modern superpower and a Consul/Emperor of a 1800's European country. Bush sits in the White House with professional generals fighting the actual war while Napoleon marches with his army from one end of Europe to another.

Even then GWB's ineptness as commander-in-chief shows through.

Besides, what chance do you think that a US general can pull off a successful coup d'etat? Just about as close to zero as it gets. Bonaparte himself was a general who pulled off a successful coup d'etat. In that sense he was merely the first among equals. Equals don't tend to follow each other long...but the marshals of the First Empire did.

[Geoffrey S]

He weakened his country and caused the defeat of the revolutionary ideas of freedom, justice, equality before the law, and chances of achievments and self-fulfillment in life not depending on how rich your parents were.

His country was already in shambles after this great revolution had utterly failed to achieve equality and justice to all, descinding into a bloody anarchy. Considering the backdrop I find his achievements all the more remarkable. And as AntiochusIII very rightly points out, he did bring such values to the rest of Europe, particularly in the Low Countries and the German states.

It wasn't respect and skill, but scare tactics and propaganda. Propagandaic indoctrination at school age and at special military training camps. Telling them they were fighting for the revolution, when they were only fighting to satisfy Nappy's hunger for land and thirst for blood.

And isn't that skill in its own fashion? No-one had done so quite that effectively before.

Hitler and Stalin also "made Europe into what we see today". Such a statement is not necessarily positive. All credit Napoleon fans give Napoleon really belongs to the Revolution and the people's fight for freedom and justice. Napoleon did not want to fight for these things, he wanted to fight. And to fight, he pretended he fought for these things and abused the trust of the masses while he was still too weak to be deposed of, and once he had deployed all the tools of a dictator to be able to terrorize and murder any dissenters, he went even more mad and backstabbed and invaded his allies in Spain and invaded Russia. And when in Spain the people revolted because they didn't like being raped and murdered at the whims of some alcoholized mob of French soldiers, he executed masses of civilians, using methods of occupation which clearly inspired Adolf Hitler during his occupation of France and other countries during ww2. Napoleon also inspired Hitler with his use of propaganda, his use of secret police and control over the population, and with his references back to ancient and Medieval times.

That's pretty angry. Napoleon changed the face of Europe; in my opinion, that is 'great', since the term does not imply a moral judgement to me, else how can anyone who ordered the deaths of thousands be considered 'great'?

[Kralizec]

Anyhow, I'm not arguing that Napoleon was a total failure, or calling him less capable than the average general of the era - just questioning why he is called a genius. So, I'm asking: can you provide enough examples of clever actions to outweight the failures? I do recognize the examples of credit, but disagree that they outweigh the failures.

It always seemed to me that Napoleon was capable of brilliant victories and collosal blunders alike. He was good, but at times sloppy or stubborn. Since the French levy system could replace losses that would have crippled Prussia or any other kingdom, he could suffer an occasional setback, the rest of his battles would make up for it.

The impact of the Code Napoleon (later, Code Civil) can hardly be overstated, but there had been other monarchs who tried to pull of such a codification of similar proportions but failed due to their weaker position. It was the high level of centralization that had occurred that enabled it, and that was only in part Napoleon's doing. It's interesting to note, that after Napoleon had been exiled permanently he remarked that the Code was his greatest lasting contribution.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Robert Harvey certainly does not seem to think so, whether through his own opinion or through the evidence he gives.
In The War Of Wars Harvey really does give Boney's reputation and Myth a good thrashing, showing him to be considered by his more able Marshals as nothing but an equal, a partner in the splitting of Europes spoils. A maniac autocrat of the first order (he is most damning of his supression of the constitution by force) who were it not for the Scheming Talleyrand and Fuche would be lost on International and even national polotics. Was averse to any kind of peace as his power rested upon a wartime army and national cohesion.
Indeed in some of his private letters and accounts of his meetings with those with whom he was displeased. he comes across as childlike and politically inept.

I am no expert and I doubt any of us are but I still would ask for you're interpretation of Nappy.

Where to begin. Or where to end. You can fill a decently sized library with published opinions about Napoleon.

Was Napoleon that great? In my opinion, he was a great general, a great unifier. A giant of law. And a great hammer of progress, the man who put a bajonet in the hands of the enlightenment.
He was also a general who gambled and lost it all, a dictator, a divisive figure, the adventurer who lost Europe to the Restauration, the man who betrayed the Revolution.

I think general opinion varies along the above lines too. Overall, he still arouses the same sentiments today as he did when he was alive: Napoleon chastises France, bleeds her dry, betrays her, but his errors and crimes are forgotten in the drunk wallowing in the glory, the achievements, the grandeur.


I haven't read Robert Harvey's work. I googled for some reviews about his book. Few were very much in praise of it, his ‘The War Of Wars’. Below is what I think is actually a good summation of many reviews, not a proper review but an Amazon comment. I'll quote it, if only because the writer is named Louis:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

14 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
Readable but awful history, 29 Aug 2007
By Louis Davout (London, England) - See all my reviews

Robert Harvey writes well enough, as a former journalist should, but, on the basis of this book anyway, he is not much of a historian. Not only is the book littered with factual errors - incorrect dates, wrongly rendered names, false 'facts', etc. - but his interpretations and arguments leave a lot to be desired also. His treatment of Napoleon is a case in point. Harvey basically presents us with a rehash of the old black legend, belittling Napoleon's achievements wherever possible (no matter how implausibly) and besmirching his character at every turn. Napoleon was not without serious flaws, of course, but to present him as a grotesque caricature is poor history and does nothing to develop our understanding of him or the period he dominated. One presumes Harvey's loathing for Bonaparte comes in part from his equally evident 'little England' view of history, which is another major weakness of this book. The wars which raged from 1792 to 1815 were far more than just a struggle between Britain and France, yet the impression given by this book is that other states played bit parts at best. While occasionally critical of Britain and British figures, Harvey's patriotism (or should that be jingoism?) nevertheless shines through clearly and one gets the sense that he genuinely believes that Britain was almost solely responsible for 'saving' Europe from the 'nightmare' of Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. As someone who has read a lot about the era covered by this book, I would warn fellow fans of the period to steer clear, as they will find little new or interesting in it. Even less would I recommend it to readers new to the subject. Instead, I would advise anyone looking for a single volume covering similar ground to consider David Chandler's authoritative 'The Campaigns of Napoleon' which is unsurpassed in its military detail, David Gates's shorter but still excellent 'The Napoleonic Wars' or Michael Adams's 'Napoleon and Russia', which, despite the title, effectively covers the whole of the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and, by putting the relationship between France and Russia (instead of France and Britain) at the heart of the story, provides a host of interesting new insights.

As for Napoleon = Hitler. There are some remarkable parallels. But not that many. History does not repeat itself.
As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?

[Vladimir]

As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?

Wasn't the metric system myth dispelled on page 1?

[Rodion Romanovich]

As for Napoleon = Hitler. There are some remarkable parallels. But not that many. History does not repeat itself.
As for a historical judgement about the two, ask yourself this: if Europe would've been unified by the sword, in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity? One that, along with its armies, brought standardised laws, the metric system, emancipation of Jews, abolition of the feudal system, a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen?

That is quite some hyperbole! First of all, was it liberty to reward Spain, a good ally, with backstabbing, invasion, rape and massmurder? If Napoleon could do that to Spain, what would a victorious Napoleon not have done to the rest of Europe? To claim you're fighting for freedom when you're just massmurdering is not just massmurder but also hypocrisy. Let me examine each of your claims:
- "Napoleon defeated would have made Hitler victorious": most likely, nationalism and a state called Germany wouldn't even have arisen in the first place if Napoleon I and III hadn't launched their unprovoked attacks - and subsequent atrocies in the form of rape, murder and pillaging on the small, independent German duchies. These duchies had no involvement whatsoever with the countries that attacked the revolutionary France. They were conquered just because it was convenient to link up the conquered territories, much like Judaea was conquered without casus belli by the romans. I would actually have preferred living in a Europe where nazism had never arisen, over a Europe where first Napoleon massmurders and rapes over Europe, then Hitler and Stalin come too and repeat the job. Napoleonic imperialism and Hitler's nazism were not opposites in a zero sum game, they were the exact same type of things: horrible things.
- "standardised laws wouldn't have existed without Napoleon": there were laws everywhere in Europe before Napoleon, standardized for each region. The differences in law between different areas was due to less centralization and more local freedom, autonomity and democracy. Different parts of the country have different laws that are optimal. Equalizing everything and removing local freedom is only useful for facilitating despotism and centralization. Also worth mentioning is that Napoleon, like all other rulers famous for summarizing laws, failed to realize the madness of having more laws than any living human being can learn in a lifetime, and associated with breaking any of them, a severe punishment. Just putting all existing laws into a single book and removing local freedom isn't much of an achievement IMO. But summarizing, removing duplicates, finding common factors to drastically reduce the law, would have been an act not of genius, but of very basic, sound reasoning when it comes to organizational matters.
- "the metric system": I already showed on page 1 that this is wrong
- "emancipation of Jews": I take it you mean "increased respect and tolerance for" (excuse me for my poor English, it's not entirely clear to me what value the word emancipation has). Wiki says the following, and I think it summarizes the issue well (that whatever good effects may have come from Napoleon's behavior, it was not a goal of his, but merely a side-effect of his other goals - namely hunger for power):

Napoleon's personal attitude towards the Jews is not always clear, as he made a number of statements both in support and opposition to the Jewish people at various times. Historian Rabbi Berel Wein in Triumph of Survival states that Napoleon was primarily interested in seeing the Jews assimilate, rather than prosper as a separate community: "Napoleon's outward tolerance and fairness toward Jews was actually based upon his grand plan to have them disappear entirely by means of total assimilation, intermarriage, and conversion." This ambivalence can be found in some of his first definitively recorded utterances on this subject in connection with the question of the treatment of the Alsace Jews and their debtors raised in the Imperial Council on April 30, 1806.

The net effect of his policies, however, significantly changed the position of the Jews in Europe

When someone achieves good things by having bad intents, I'm not sure how they should be judged. At the very least, had he been alive now and striving for power over Europe, I would clearly have fought against him since his intent was most likely to eventually do a bad thing if he had succeeded in his (very unrealistic) military expansion goals. Perhaps lucky that he happened to die before he managed to do that? About the judgement over him as a dead man I'm as I said not sure. How should you judge someone whose actions happened to have good consequences, when his intentions, had he lived longer, would most likely have been very bad?
- "abolition of the feudal system": I can't see where on earth you got this claim from. The feudal system was mostly abolished during the late Medieval period, and the remnants of it was weakened most by the 17th century developments with increasing importance of trade, and increasing numbers and influence of the borgeioise (sp?), and general increase in industrialization and production. This is what allowed the French Revolution to take place, and also what enabled most other countries of the 19th century to revolt against aristocracy. Since almost everyone benefitted from overthrowing the aristocracy and the proletariat could do it because of these economical developments, I doubt any form of "spreading of the idea" (which could maybe, and only maybe, be credited to Napoleon's war campaigns of rape and murder) would have an impact even comparable to the impact of these basic society structure and economical changes which made revolts more likely to succeed.
- "a Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizen": which do you refer to?

Living at the end of the Enlightenment, Napoleon also became notorious for his effort to suppress the slave revolt in Haiti and his 1801 decision to re-establish slavery in France after it was banned following the revolution.
[...]
Napoleon is sometimes alleged to have been in many ways the direct inspiration for later autocrats: he never flinched when facing the prospect of war and death for thousands, friend or foe, and turned his search of undisputed rule into a continuous cycle of conflict throughout Europe, ignoring treaties and conventions alike. Even if other European powers continually offered Napoleon terms that would have restored France's borders to situations only dreamt by the Bourbon kings, he always refused compromise, and only accepted surrender.

[Peasant Phill]

Rodion, I understand some might for the most part only see the good things someone did, while others mostly see the attrocities. And as one of the few (the only one?) here that has a negative overall view of Napoleon, language and views tends to radicalise a bit. But try to be a bit objective.

...
- "Napoleon defeated would have made Hitler victorious": most likely, nationalism and a state called Germany wouldn't even have arisen in the first place if Napoleon I and III hadn't launched their unprovoked attacks - and subsequent atrocies in the form of rape, murder and pillaging on the small, independent German duchies
...

Where do you get this quote? I haven't read it in other posts.
You actually claim that Hitlers attrocities are Napoleons fault? Is Charlemagne also to blame? think about it.

- "standardised laws wouldn't have existed without Napoleon": there were laws everywhere in Europe before Napoleon, standardized for each region. The differences in law between different areas was due to less centralization and more local freedom, autonomity and democracy. Different parts of the country have different laws that are optimal. Equalizing everything and removing local freedom is only useful for facilitating despotism and centralization. Also worth mentioning is that Napoleon, like all other rulers famous for summarizing laws, failed to realize the madness of having more laws than any living human being can learn in a lifetime, and associated with breaking any of them, a severe punishment. Just putting all existing laws into a single book and removing local freedom isn't much of an achievement IMO. But summarizing, removing duplicates, finding common factors to drastically reduce the law, would have been an act not of genius, but of very basic, sound reasoning when it comes to organizational matters.

Again, no one claimed that there wouldn't have been standardised law. What was claimed is that he formed one that was an example/benchmark for future law codes. If you study constitutions all over Europe, you'll find a lot of similarities all tracable back to the code Napoleon.

I'm also quite amused when you use the word democracy for that day and age. I believe the credo was "everything for the people, nothing by the people" for most (if not all) European countries. There already was little freedom, why do you think the situation was so tense at the time?

I didn't comment on the rest as I'm not knowledgeable enough in those areas to reply.

Rodion, your opinion is aprreciated: not much of a debate if everybody agrees. But do try to be objective. I find it hard to take you seriously when you write rape and massmurder every other line.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Where do you get this quote? I haven't read it in other posts.

It's not a quote, it's a summary of his claim, which was:

in which Europe would you rather have lived? One that has the slogan 'Kill the Untermensch, make way for the Master Race'? Or one whose battle cry is Liberty, equality, fraternity?

...which more or less said if Napoleon had lost earlier Hitler would have managed to do more damage, or could be interpreted that way. I wished to argue that such an interpretation is very nationalistic - and incorrect. And that even if that would be Napoleon's battle cry (which it wasn't btw, afaik), he didn't live up to this alleged battlecry.

You actually claim that Hitlers attrocities are Napoleons fault? Is Charlemagne also to blame? think about it.

No, I'm not claiming that Hitler's atrocities are Napoleon's fault. I'm arguing why it would be ridiculous to claim that success for Napoleon's would stand against success for Hitler. I however think that part of stirring up the troubles in Germany was Napoleon's fault. Just as the actions of Charles V - HRE and Spain, during the previous period, had no little part in causing French Imperialism, and so on. Almost all previous atrocities come back as part of the cause of each new atrocity one way or another. That is why I'm against all atrocities. If I'm among the minority whose life got better because of the action of one particular massmurderer, then I certainly won't support him because the next massmurderer, who hurt some grouping I belong to, is partially caused by the previous one. I will not concern myself with pointless moral judgements such as "how many percent of the guilt for atrocity x lies on person y", but merely notice that the "percentage", if any such measure could at all be invented or at all considered sensible, is larger than zero for most previous atrocities that happen geographically close enough, and that is enough to hate them - even those that by chance happen to be to your own benefit. Violence causes violence, so before you celebrate the violence of someone who drew violence over your enemies but that were neutral to him (thus no justification), remember that he also had part in creating the next such man, who instead happened to draw violence over your friends.

Rodion, your opinion is aprreciated: not much of a debate if everybody agrees. But do try to be objective. I find it hard to take you seriously when you write rape and massmurder every other line.

I find it hard to take someone seriously who supports a war without any positive result whatsoever. For a war to be positive and worth supporting, it has to have an end result that is greater than what's needed to compensate what the war itself is, namely - rape and murder. Often, people forget that the end result of the war must outweigh the rape and murder by far to be worth celebrating. Often, people just judge the outcome, and forget that what positive came out of the war, was far less valuable than avoiding the rape and murder would have been. This is why I often replace "offensive, unprovoked war" with "rape and murder". When we say "the end justifies the means", we must remember that the means are part of the end result: if you kill 1 million people to avoid having 2 million people dead, your end is not "avoid the death of 2 million people", but it is "murder 1 million people and save 2 million other people, and giving a bad name to morality and the concept of saving people's lives".

[Kralizec]

and subsequent atrocies in the form of rape, murder and pillaging on the small, independent German duchies. These duchies had no involvement whatsoever with the countries that attacked the revolutionary France. They were conquered just because it was convenient to link up the conquered territories, much like Judaea was conquered without casus belli by the romans.

These poor little German realms you mentioned were at this point all still part of the Holy Roman Empire. And it went different than the way you are suggesting it went.

Napoleon craved stepping in the footsteps of Charlemagne and styled himself Empereur in 1804. The HRE at that time still claimed to be the legitimate successors of the western Roman empire.
It's pretty clear that eventually, Napoleon would never have accepted coexistence with another Imperial pretendent. However the same went for Franz II, who joined with the Third Coalition and marched against Napoleon the next year.

After the Battle of the Three Emperors, the peace terms foresaw in the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine (Rheinbund). The members of it recalled their representatives from the German Reichstag and only days later Franz II announced the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire, and he continued only as Emperor of Austria (a title he had given himself 2 years before that, just after Napoleon gave himself his)

Napoleon only annexed those HRE territories on the western bank of the Rhine. The rest went to the Rheinbund, wich was a sattelite state whose obligations to France were pretty much only to step out of the HRE and deliver troops for the French war effort. I'm not aware of what atrocities occurred in the annexed territories, presumably they weren't bad enough to earn specific mention (unlike say, Spain)

[Rodion Romanovich]

These poor little German realms you mentioned were at this point all still part of the Holy Roman Empire. And it went different than the way you are suggesting it went.

Note that my comment was in response to the possible interpretation of the claim above, that success of Napoleon stood against success of Hitler. I claim the opposite: Napoleon's atrocities didn't decrease Hitler's actions, but probably had part in causing German nationalism/imperialism. See my post above, where I in fairness also point out that the actions of Charles V - HRE and Spain - in the period before - probably caused the French nationalism, and that you can show for almost all atrocities that part of the cause for it was a previous atrocity. Violence causes violence, and supporting a massmurderer who killed your enemies and helped your friends, is irrational since his actions are part in creating the next massmurderer that kills your friends and helps your enemies.

Napoleon craved stepping in the footsteps of Charlemagne and styled himself Empereur in 1804. The HRE at that time still claimed to be the legitimate successors of the western Roman empire.
It's pretty clear that eventually, Napoleon would never have accepted coexistence with another Imperial pretendent. However the same went for Franz II, who joined with the Third Coalition and marched against Napoleon the next year.

The old aspiration to recreate Rome, that has caused so much trouble and death in our continent... *sigh*

I'm not aware of what atrocities occurred in the annexed territories, presumably they weren't bad enough to earn specific mention (unlike say, Spain)

The HRE was a very loose confederation - almost a collection of independent states - at the time. The annexed territories mostly went from almost autonomous, to annexation. Napoleon had no quarrel with the almost independent territories - his quarrel was with Austria.

And look at Spain. "Those poor little" Spanish? Are the actions in Spain, as carried out by Napoleon, good examples of how you would like leaders to behave? And bear in mind that the actions in Spain - the ruthless unprovoked backstabbing caused by nothing else than hunger for power, and caused the death and rape of huge numbers of Spanish civilians - is often claimed to have had a great part in causing the economical decline and subsequent instability in Spain that caused the Spanish civil war and the rice of the fascist Franco. Not to mention the other - very important - psychological effect it had to the rest of Europe: how could anyone in Europe be safe as long as France was strong, if what France did when she was strong was to do things such as the actions in Spain - unleashing rape and murder only to satisfy a pointless hunger for power? This was not an entirely fair picture of course, since the war in Spain was most likely NOT supported by most French citizens (but some Napoleon apologetics here seem to think it was...), but considering how many cheered on Napoleon and called him so great even then, that conclusion was quite easy to make, even if incorrect. So no wonder then that the independent states in the Italian peninsula and former HRE didn't resist much against the often brutal and violent uniting carried out by Garibaldi and Bismarck. The massmurderer and nationalist Napoleon saw them as untermenschen since they weren't French - but at least the massmurderers who now united them promised they were to be considered to have the same status as their conqueror - a preferable (if still horrible) alternative. Again, I will refrain from trying to say Napoleon caused x percent of this or that, but merely point out that his actions were part of the cause of many later atrocities, and pointing out how fragile diplomacy really is, and how even small atrocities (the annexation of part of the HRE), could be that little thing that ruins everything - and how a huge atrocity - such as the one in Spain - spreads general fear even to others than its immediate victims. In short - that when seeing an atrocity with seemingly positive end results, one should remember all the little effects it also has, that together can cause massive problems later, and as I pointed out - that every war, no matter how good its intention - in the end is just rape and murder. It's not often that the end result of unprovoked war or conquest becomes good enough that it can even come close to outweighing all these little dangerous effects, that always come from unprovoked war or abuse of strength.

Let me finally point out that my style of debating is not to state my opinion, but to give the arguments that together with the posts before approximately even out to the opinion I hold. My opinion in this case lies somewhere in between, but since there are so many posts above Napoleon's "greatness" I have pointed out all arguments for the other extreme view as I felt the picture given without them was incorrect and unbalanced. This seems to have resulted in many misunderstandings above as to what opinion I had (and probably in other debates as well ).

[Conradus]

if Napoleon III hadn't launched their unprovoked attacks...

If you're referring to the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, this is hardly a fair statement. Both Napoleon III and Bismarck were searching for a conflict. Napoleon to re-establish France as the leading continental power, and Bismarck to unite al German nations under Wilhelm. Following Bismarck's Elms Dispatch, you can hardly say that the war was unprovoked. And the superiority of Prussia on the strategic branch, as well as better artillery and numerical superiority made victory almost definite before the war started.