Help: Translating Napoleon

[cmacq]

A bit on the poetic side?

'This Hannibal…
who did not descend into Italy by paying half his army, choose only his battlefield and only his right to fight.’

I'm not totally sure about this?

Would this line have something to do with a New Republic not entirely funding a certain Franco-Italian campaign?

[Horst Nordfink]

I'm unsure about Napoleon. He was a tyranical megalomaniac with ambitions of ruling Europe and caused the deaths of countless thousands (some estimate over 5 million). An unlikely hero. Not even French.

Mind you, how many other respected people could that description fit?

[cmacq]

I'm just here for the French lesson?

[TiFlo]

I just came across this topic. And I'm French, and I don't want to comment on Napoleon's means, behaviour and achievements
@ Tellos Athenaios
«général en chef» means «commander in chief», so you can keep it as it is in the translation.
EDIT: I just read Cmaq's translation and correction about it. Nevermind.

Apart from that, this is pretty good. The sense of it is very well rendered, and the style you applied perfectly fits.

[cmacq]

Mon arrangement de Francais est si mauvais? Pardon, ma mauvaise plaisanterie, merci.

[pezhetairoi]

I'm unsure about Napoleon. He was a tyranical megalomaniac with ambitions of ruling Europe and caused the deaths of countless thousands (some estimate over 5 million). An unlikely hero. Not even French.

Mind you, how many other respected people could that description fit?

Agreed, he was megalomaniacal. But he was a great general for a time. And at least when he started out, the intentions for France were good. He did reform things in the period between the Peace of Amiens until and Third Coalition war, and undoubtedly would have done more if war had not broken out (admittedly through his own shoddy and jingoistic mismanagement of the Brits).

And if we want to look at it that way, practically every other 'great man' we know of in history also waded over the blood of innocents, whose smaller number were no doubt a commensurate proportion of the population of the world then. Alexander massacred the Gazans. Julius Caesar practically carried out genocide in Gaul. The Assyrians were famously bloodthirsty, just read their monuments and tally the heads they collected. Genghis Khan, Qin Shihuang, Asoka and Chandragupta, all the same too. Louis XIV made France a Power but damn near bled his country dry at the same time. Peter the Great may have built St Petersburg and made Russia a force to be reckoned with, but at what cost of those who died in the Neva marshes?

This description is not really meant to fit respected people, Horst. It's meant to fit feared people, when it boils down to the bare basics, people with the auctoritas and the gravitas and the wherewithal to compel that their will be obeyed. Respect is just the people's justification for their fear, most of the time, though in some cases what they have accomplished is indeed worthy of respect, if one puts away the human cost.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I have to agree with Pezhetairoi. Napoleon was a tyrant, but his intentions were originally good. He wanted what was good for his adopted country, yes I am aware that Corsica was independent not long before his birth.

He wanted France to be strong and respected. Ruling just about all of continental Europe is one way to acheive this.

And a fair few 'respected' people could be thought of like that. Henry the fifth and Edward the first of England I'd like to add to the list. Suleiman the magnificent, an epithet that is truly deserved, killed most of his sons before his own death. The battle of Mohacs has come down through history to us (... think ears... I'll say no more). Richard the Lionheart. (yes... I am English).

Respect doesn't have to come through fear. But fear on that sort of scale can make for a lot of respect!

That said I thought the French people of the time, at least in the early years, believed in the 'Little Sergeant's' cause. Or maybe that's just me.

[Horst Nordfink]

There were good things about Napoleon too. That is why I am unsure about him. I don't know whether I should dislike him for his war-mongering or respect him for his brilliant command.

As with everyone, there are aspects of a persons personality that don't fit the mould.

I didn't want to upset people. Apologies if I did.

[Mediolanicus]

He may have had a terrible personality an may have killed many, many people.
But in the eyes of the French back then he was truely a hero, a conqueror.

And don't forget the Code Napoléon. He knew military victories were only temporarily, but a legal victory would last! And he was right, because except for the common law lands, every single other nation has had a civil code that was either litteraly the Code Napoléon or a derivate of it.
Of course he didn't right the code himself, but he did attend half the meetings.
Not that he improved it much, because Napoleon was Coriscan provincial boy, with conservative provincial views. So in some ways it was even more backward than the "backward" local rules that existed everywhere, it replaced.

For example Napoleon made the women totally unable. Because of this they had to accompagnied by or would need written permission of their husbands or fathers every time they went to buy a bread.
And he only kept divorce legal because he wanted to get rid of his own wife.

Anyway, he did some good things too. Their even is a Western European nation who still uses the Code Napoléon (in name, it's content has been adapted by special laws) and it ain't France.

This whole code thing was pure propaganda for Napoleon. Before him you had different law every 5 miles, now you had the same law in most parts of the world. This made him a hero with the upper classes and his military victories made him popular with the lower classes.

[pezhetairoi]

There were good things about Napoleon too. That is why I am unsure about him. I don't know whether I should dislike him for his war-mongering or respect him for his brilliant command.

As with everyone, there are aspects of a persons personality that don't fit the mould.

I didn't want to upset people. Apologies if I did.

No worries there. Fair points you made, I thought you were being a bit one-sided originally but I know better now.

The two things aren't mutually exclusive, you know. Most people are love-hate objects. They're good at one thing but at the cost of another. So it is possible to respect Nappy (as I used to call him in history class) for his brilliance, but to dislike him for the chaos he brought to Europe.

No one can fully fit within his mould, I think.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
This horse is being recently beaten here.
.