Was Napoleon Good?

[The United Holy German Reich]

Good evening. Tonight I wish to hear your opinions on the topic I shall present now.
I remember a few years ago and as I sat studying for my test,the discussion my class had was about Napoleon. In class we had debates about whether or not Napoleon stuck true to the revolutionary ideals or betrayed them during his reign. After hearing both sides of the argument it has been hard to fall on either side. Although, he can be argued good or bad, I believe he was the right leader for the time. Napoleon was able to bring the stability and the strength that France needed at that time. Napoleon brought the country economic stability, social mobility, religious freedom as well as making France a strong military force. Even with the things I have listed many could say he still betrayed the ideas of the French Revolution, but it makes one begin to wonder even though he betrayed the ideals of the French Revolution is it okay because he made France a stronger country?

I'm looking for opinions with facts, not mindless statements.

[Ardoki]

He spread the ideals of the Revolution abroad, and ensured they would remain in France (he was the only real alternative to royalist counter-revolution at that time).

He may have betrayed some of the ideals of the Revolution on the surface, but he was necessary to protect the rest of them.

[The Texan Union]

Good.

Fact: He made France important. Now they aren't.

[Beaucoup]

He helped America gain independence, and America nowadays.. Napoleon is bad.

[Rusozak]

He wasn't the ideal leader, but given the time period and the alternatives, he was good. He undid a lot of the insanity of the french revolution, and unlike the other leaders of Europe, Napoleon actually seemed to care about the people he ruled. I don't think any other leader in Europe at the time was as tolerant of religion or cultural differences.

He brought war and destruction to Europe, but considering his opponents, I would say he was a good leader.

[Gim]

Good.

Fact: He made France important. Now they aren't.

Yes, good, for making France a powerhouse. I don't see how wars can be bad, if Napoleon was pretty successful in them.

[The United Holy German Reich]

He helped America gain independence, and America nowadays.. Napoleon is bad.

America became independent before Napoleon was even in power. He did sell much of the Midwest to us in the Louisiana Purchase though.

[Nickel Empire]

His swath of destruction across Europe was all necessary to restore France to her former glory. He was good on that.

[Telintar]

Good? No. Great? Yes.

The things he did were "Great" in the size, scale, and magnificence of his undertakings. But was he necessarily a good person? No.

[Daburuetchi]

Imperialism is bad m'kay?

[Ardoki]

He wasn't the ideal leader, but given the time period and the alternatives, he was good. He undid a lot of the insanity of the french revolution, and unlike the other leaders of Europe, Napoleon actually seemed to care about the people he ruled. I don't think any other leader in Europe at the time was as tolerant of religion or cultural differences.

He brought war and destruction to Europe, but considering his opponents, I would say he was a good leader.

Almost all the wars Napoleon was involved in (save for about 2, if my memory is correct - Spain and Russia) were started by others (led by Britain).

Saying he brought war and bloodshed across Europe is just wrong. Even before he came to power, the Coalitions had been trying to destroy the ideals of the Revolution. Only when Napoleon started winning those wars (even before he came to power), did he become the bloodthirsty aggressor in people's minds.

[Gim]

He helped America gain independence, and America nowadays.. Napoleon is bad.

America became independent before Napoleon was even in power. He did sell much of the Midwest to us in the Louisiana Purchase though.

I think he was joking.

[The Isolationist State Of Islam]

He helped America gain independence, and America nowadays.. Napoleon is bad.

That's false. Napoleon came to power in 1789.
The American Revolution ended 1783.

[Salus Maior]

Depends on whether you are French or not. Which seems to be in line with what people are saying above.

[The Dragon Realms Empire]

Napoleon I was one of if not the Greatest Leader France ever had.

[Rusozak]

He wasn't the ideal leader, but given the time period and the alternatives, he was good. He undid a lot of the insanity of the french revolution, and unlike the other leaders of Europe, Napoleon actually seemed to care about the people he ruled. I don't think any other leader in Europe at the time was as tolerant of religion or cultural differences.

He brought war and destruction to Europe, but considering his opponents, I would say he was a good leader.

Almost all the wars Napoleon was involved in (save for about 2, if my memory is correct - Spain and Russia) were started by others (led by Britain).

Saying he brought war and bloodshed across Europe is just wrong. Even before he came to power, the Coalitions had been trying to destroy the ideals of the Revolution. Only when Napoleon started winning those wars (even before he came to power), did he become the bloodthirsty aggressor in people's minds.

A majority were, yes. However, Napoleon was too ambitious. He could have settled on ruling just half of Europe and consolidated his holdings, making France too powerful to be threatened further. But Napoleon extended his reach too far and brought about more wars of conquest.

[Beaucoup]

America became independent before Napoleon was even in power. He did sell much of the Midwest to us in the Louisiana Purchase though.

I think he was joking.

At least you get it.

But seriously, Napoleon may have burnt down a lot of Europe, but in the end, it gave the rest of Europe something to unite against. The alliance didn't last long, but it was there

[The Sotoan Union]

He spread the ideals of the Revolution abroad, and ensured they would remain in France (he was the only real alternative to royalist counter-revolution at that time).

He may have betrayed some of the ideals of the Revolution on the surface, but he was necessary to protect the rest of them.

Which ideals of the revolution did he preserve exactly? He replaced the old monarchy with his own, and it ultimately became little different than the other royal families.

[Salus Maior]

Almost all the wars Napoleon was involved in (save for about 2, if my memory is correct - Spain and Russia) were started by others (led by Britain).

Saying he brought war and bloodshed across Europe is just wrong. Even before he came to power, the Coalitions had been trying to destroy the ideals of the Revolution. Only when Napoleon started winning those wars (even before he came to power), did he become the bloodthirsty aggressor in people's minds.

Conquering and reorganizing most of Eastern Europe, placing his family members on foreign thrones, and his atrocities in Spain also lent to that image.

[Gim]

I think he was joking.

At least you get it.

But seriously, Napoleon may have burnt down a lot of Europe, but in the end, it gave the rest of Europe something to unite against. The alliance didn't last long, but it was there

Napoleon should have existed during the World Wars. He could have single-handed driven Germany out from the French territory.

[Daburuetchi]

At least you get it.

But seriously, Napoleon may have burnt down a lot of Europe, but in the end, it gave the rest of Europe something to unite against. The alliance didn't last long, but it was there

Napoleon should have existed during the World Wars. He could have single-handed driven Germany out from the French territory.

His tactic of shoot a volley and then run up to the enemy and try to stab them wouldn't have gotten him very far

[Gauthier]

Should Napoleon be reunited with his penis?

[Ardoki]

Depends on whether you are French or not. Which seems to be in line with what people are saying above.

For those who were liberated (conquered) by him, they were better off. The ideals of the Revolution were spread across Europe, greatly liberalising the very conservative and aristocratic kingdoms.

Almost all the wars Napoleon was involved in (save for about 2, if my memory is correct - Spain and Russia) were started by others (led by Britain).

Saying he brought war and bloodshed across Europe is just wrong. Even before he came to power, the Coalitions had been trying to destroy the ideals of the Revolution. Only when Napoleon started winning those wars (even before he came to power), did he become the bloodthirsty aggressor in people's minds.

A majority were, yes. However, Napoleon was too ambitious. He could have settled on ruling just half of Europe and consolidated his holdings, making France too powerful to be threatened further. But Napoleon extended his reach too far and brought about more wars of conquest.

That option was not available to him.

Even when he defeated the Coalition forces, again and again. They would always start another war against him the next year, like clockwork. In his diary, Napoleon wanted peace but knew he would not get it from the Coalitions. The only option available to him was to decisively defeat those states and put friendly governments in charge, otherwise there would be a cycle of wars which would eventually ware France down; which ultimately did occur.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

He spread the ideals of the Revolution abroad, and ensured they would remain in France (he was the only real alternative to royalist counter-revolution at that time).

He may have betrayed some of the ideals of the Revolution on the surface, but he was necessary to protect the rest of them.

No, he betrayed the ideals of the revolution by making himself dictator, establishing his family members of rulers, re-establishing slavery in Haiti, and having his head in the clouds so high you couldn't even see his chin.

[Gim]

Napoleon should have existed during the World Wars. He could have single-handed driven Germany out from the French territory.

His tactic of shoot a volley and then run up to the enemy and try to stab them wouldn't have gotten him very far

Of course, with his exceptional brain, he could have devised military strategies, which are more in align with the timeline.