Why Robespierre lost his head! France needed Napoleon?

[Blazedtown]

Napoleon was around 5 feet 7 inches in height.

That sounds pretty tall.

Not for guys.

[Tagmatium]

Napoleon was around 5 feet 7 inches in height.

Let's not forget that 5'7'' is still really short.

But above average for the period.

He was short to us, but not at the time.

Anyway, Napoleon was a kick-arse motherfucker.

[Zaldakki]

Change the first option to Vive l'empereur!

[Angleter]

He was certainly better than what had preceded him for much of the Revolutionary era, although militarily France was doing fine throughout the 1790s despite the chaos back home.

[Banyakhutang]

There's a similar pattern to Robespierre's method and Napoleon's : they both only have one reply to opposition: threat of and use of force.

That's not exactly a winning strategy, not for the long term anyway.

[Saint-Thor]

Robespierre lost his head for being a tyrant who killed thousands in a prolonged excuse of a government which was nothing more than an orgy of violence gone mad. Sure France needed a leader but being authoritarian wasn't necessary at all rather a transition to an actual elective government instead of flip flopping back and forth.

Danton would have been better. *nods*

What? Hell no. Danton is the one who put in place the Revolutionary Tribunal. When he was Minister of the Interior he didn't do shit to prevent the massacre of September 1792. And the guy was corrupted to the core.

Napoleon was around 5 feet 7 inches in height.

Let's not forget that 5'7'' is still really short.

He was 5'6½'' (1,68m) which is average and perhaps even slightly above average, I have to double check that. The British doctors used the French units for his measurements after his death. Or perhaps they had that perception that he was small because he was always surrounded by his imperial guards who had height requirement (1,83m!).

[The Sotoan Union]

Napoleon revitalized France so that it could be devastated by war, and then turn back into a monarchy. I kind of feel like the same outcome would have been achieved anyway.

[Darwinish Brentsylvania]

That sounds pretty tall.

Not for guys.

Back then.

[Dracoria]

I don't believe he was necessary to fix France, but something was. The country wasn't in a terrific state at the time, partially due to revolutionaries turning around and culling their own, and a new plan was needed. Didn't necessarily have to be a military strongman with imperial ambitions, but it worked to some extent. Probably did a bit better in terms of pushing Italy toward unification than anything for France, though.
He was a very competent general, but I'm on the fence about how well he worked out as a statesman.

Yes. Napoleon was the Hitler of France. Well, in that he fixed its economy, not exterminating all the people, but he did turn it around. Not a great metaphor, but he did fix it and turn it into a great power. A bit like Lenin to Russia.

While I don't like the Hitler comparison, there do appear to be some similarities. Both emerged from military pasts to fix a deteriorating situation, were very aggressively expansionist, and wound up costing a lot of lives. Both were apparently quite charismatic. However, only one of them ordered the mass exterminations of millions of people and so thoroughly disgusted the world that his name will forever be mud* while the other is still seen favorably by quite a few. While Napolean is sometimes thought of as short (mostly due to British cartoonists of the time), it was Hitler who was a tiny person.

Russia was already one of the great powers of the time, and I wouldn't say Lenin fixed it. It was in the dumps due to repeated revolutions but had been a political and military power for centuries. Hell, Russia dropping out of WWI due to the first set of revolutions was a great relief to the Germans and their allies. During Lenin's time, the Soviet Russians were beaten by Poland, which had been an independent nation for less than a decade; if anything, it's the later Soviet leaders (especially Stalin, who compares a bit closer to Hitler) who were responsible for its later superpower status.

*Yeah, just picture a movie called Hitler Dynamite.

[Zaldakki]

Wait, I misread it. I thought it said "Will Napoleon be necessary to fix France?" So subtract one from the third option and add it to the first. I think he was necessary.

[Oba Shembo]

I don't believe he was necessary to fix France, but something was. The country wasn't in a terrific state at the time, partially due to revolutionaries turning around and culling their own, and a new plan was needed. Didn't necessarily have to be a military strongman with imperial ambitions, but it worked to some extent. Probably did a bit better in terms of pushing Italy toward unification than anything for France, though.
He was a very competent general, but I'm on the fence about how well he worked out as a statesman.

Yes. Napoleon was the Hitler of France. Well, in that he fixed its economy, not exterminating all the people, but he did turn it around. Not a great metaphor, but he did fix it and turn it into a great power. A bit like Lenin to Russia.

While I don't like the Hitler comparison, there do appear to be some similarities. Both emerged from military pasts to fix a deteriorating situation, were very aggressively expansionist, and wound up costing a lot of lives. Both were apparently quite charismatic. However, only one of them ordered the mass exterminations of millions of people and so thoroughly disgusted the world that his name will forever be mud* while the other is still seen favorably by quite a few. While Napolean is sometimes thought of as short (mostly due to British cartoonists of the time), it was Hitler who was a tiny person.

Russia was already one of the great powers of the time, and I wouldn't say Lenin fixed it. It was in the dumps due to repeated revolutions but had been a political and military power for centuries. Hell, Russia dropping out of WWI due to the first set of revolutions was a great relief to the Germans and their allies. During Lenin's time, the Soviet Russians were beaten by Poland, which had been an independent nation for less than a decade; if anything, it's the later Soviet leaders (especially Stalin, who compares a bit closer to Hitler) who were responsible for its later superpower status.

*Yeah, just picture a movie called Hitler Dynamite.

The metaphor was intended to end at the turning France around part. To be honest, I actually respect Napoleon, and wouldn't compare him to Hitler. That was just the first figure I can think of who turned a Republic into a proper power again. I suppose the Chinese Communists or Lenin could have done the same, and probably in a less offensive way.

As for the Lenin comparison, well think of it this way: during the First World War, the Russian army was awfully equipped. In one battle, only about 1/3 of soldiers had weapons, the others had to head forwards when their friends died and pick up the weapon. During the time of the First French Republic, some soldiers voted not to fight with their army commanders, and left. Both of that changed when the aforementioned figures came to power. Maybe the Russian army didn't change too much, but conditions were said to have improved. I should think that I don't need to explain the Napoleon one.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

That sounds pretty tall.

Not for guys.

You're not thinking eighteenth-centennially. Basketball players wouldn't be there in 1799!

[Seleucas]

He was certainly better than what had preceded him for much of the Revolutionary era, although militarily France was doing fine throughout the 1790s despite the chaos back home.

This, pretty much. But I don't think it was 'necessary' for Napoleon to have sent so many Frenchmen to their deaths.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

He was certainly better than what had preceded him for much of the Revolutionary era, although militarily France was doing fine throughout the 1790s despite the chaos back home.

This, pretty much. But I don't think it was 'necessary' for Napoleon to have sent so many Frenchmen to their deaths.

Seriously, you don't need to conquer Europe to fix your country.

[Conserative Morality]

Napoleon is a complex figure. He was at once liberal and illiberal; he saw himself as an Emperor, and as a tool of la révolution. He was a force for modernity with the trappings of royalty and tradition.

I'm not sure France needed Napoleon, but I am sure that Napoleon shaped the world for the better, whether or not his actions were justified.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Napoleon is a complex figure. He was at once liberal and illiberal; he saw himself as an Emperor, and as a tool of la révolution. He was a force for modernity with the trappings of royalty and tradition.

I'm not sure France needed Napoleon, but I am sure that Napoleon shaped the world for the better, whether or not his actions were justified.

So he was Schrodinger's Midget?

Yes, I know I'm missing the (satirical) point of Schrodinger's Cat.

[Conserative Morality]

Seriously, you don't need to conquer Europe to fix your country.

And why should the masses of serfs be left to their chains underneath a tyrant's boot? Remember that Napoleon was both a liberator and a conqueror; neither one nor the other alone fully encompasses his goals or methods.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Seriously, you don't need to conquer Europe to fix your country.

And why should the masses of serfs be left to their chains underneath a tyrant's boot? Remember that Napoleon was both a liberator and a conqueror; neither one nor the other alone fully encompasses his goals or methods.

France for French, that's why. That makes sense, actually.

[New Rogernomics]

Well, France head-ed in the right direction, it took a lot of head-aches, and the heads did roll, but they put a few heads together, and Napoleon decided to head out on a conquest of Europe. When Napoleon head-ed to Russia, you have to wonder whether he had his head on right, and whether that head-on collusion with the British was that smart a move, when it was clear that hea'd advanced to quickly. In summary, without Napoleon, France would have head-ed into a lot of chaos, hea'd made such a mark on history, and on the map of Europe, that it is difficult to comprehend a world without him.

And, i'm all punned out.

[Nirya]

Being a Frenchman, I will be on this thread.
And I will proudly say that Robespierre was a piece of human shit !
This is a man a murderer and manipulator.
A traitor, a peasant, and a coward !

[Nirya]

Arras, France. Robespierre was a radical Jacobin leader and one of the principal figures in the French Revolution. In the latter months of 1793 he came to dominate the Committee of Public Safety, the principal organ of the Revolutionary government during the Reign of Terror, but in 1794 he was overthrown and guillotined.

This is when Napoleon entered France and caused prosperity. Napoleon revitalized the french military and had a brilliant code of law. He gained territory for France and had great values for his time.

Did France need him?

Yes, we needed him.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Being a Frenchman, I will be on this thread.
And I will proudly say that Robespierre was a piece of human shit !
This is a man a murderer and manipulator.
A traitor, a peasant, and a coward !

Got a problem with peasants?

[Nirya]

Good night sweet prince

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Good night sweet prince

(Image)

Spoilers, please.

But anyway, that guy is butt-ugly.

[Nirya]

Good night sweet prince

(Image)

Spoilers, please.

But anyway, that guy is butt-ugly.

That "guy" as you put it, would be Louis XIV.