Was Napoleon Good?

[Gim]

The fundamental fact of causing warfare makes a leader not good. Pacifism is the virtue of any nation or an empire.

Napoleon didn't cause most of the wars that he fought.

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

[Jacobania]

Napoleon didn't cause most of the wars that he fought.

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

Yes he did. How does that make him evil?

[Gim]

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

Yes he did. How does that make him evil?

Warfare itself is killing people and causing suffering and chaos for everyone involved and around the site of warfare.

[Morr]

That is still more common than in Athens though. Most weren't even able to supplement their income at all.

Yeah, being sent to work to give your husband all the money is more freedom for women.

These objections were fairly common, however.

Source?

While poetry is a useful source, it presents a very warped picture - of a tiny literate elite who aren't necessarily talking about reality. Furthermore, there isn't even so much poetic evidence for female rights. If that's the bedrock of your evidence, I'd suggest casting a wider net - there are no female patrons in the inscriptions, no female politicians, almost no female greeks mentioned in the histories (and none given much mention), or the philosophies (Socrates is rather disdainful of his wife) - perhaps the only exception are the plays present a more nuanced picture, and certainly not the levels you are suggesting.

There are plenty of female Greeks mentioned in Herodotus.

Socrates/Plato (we can never know which one was talking) was actually a proto-feminist, who said women should participate in sports, politics, even the military, making the argument that we don't only take the male dogs when there's a hunt.

They didn't even exist in Greece.

That's true in a technical sense, but drama was, relative to the 19th Century, and new innovation, and women fully participated in its source, which was the Dionysian mysteries, where participants would wear different masks and play different parts. Initially the parts were just satyrs and such, but it got to expand and that's how drama started.

Sappho is a rather lone exception, in the same vein of Artemisia being equally so. Sappho is not representative, and examples that come even close to her are almost non-existent.

That's because so many records are gone. If our only record of the 19th Century were contemporary histories of it and the top twenty or so writers, women would be largely absent.

Women had no legal statehood in Athens, they were not considered full citizens, and her male guardians had total right to dispose of her property. France was better than this, albeit slightly.

Neither male or female citizens existed in France in the sense they did in Athens, since citizens, even those who owned no property, could vote, whereas Napoleon was an autocrat.

You'd be better off using Rome as an example of relative freedom for women. Or at least not Athens.

I wasn't using Athens as an example of "relative freedom for women", if you'll care to look. I was using them as an objection to the idea that Napoleon was the first one to make egalitarianism "work". Certainly his egalitarianism was not for women or slaves, so if anyone tries to pull that with Athens, I will remind them of that.

[Morr]

Napoleon didn't cause most of the wars that he fought.

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

[Gim]

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

Who started the wars, then? I thought he did.

[Valaran]

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

Actually its fairly well established that he pressured most of his opponents into starting them. I have several sources that examine this if you want (though they may only say it several dozen pages in).

(I'll reply to your main post later - its late here)

[Courlany]

Napoleon:

1. Dissolved the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither 'holy' nor 'Roman'). He simply swept away many other old regimes such as Venice, Bourbons, and so on.
2. Spread civic law through Europe. He firmly established a progressive legal system. Many countries still use it today.
3. Nobility, churches, lost their privileges. Codified religious freedom.
4. Abolished ability of the church to levy taxes
5. Reinforced, enhanced, spread 'European rationalism' movement. Spread what is today the metric system, copied in 196 countries.
6. Introduced fair taxes, increased trade, systematised commerce, established the central bank in France (again, copied elsewhere)
7. Reformed public education. Promoted the importance of a middle class. Established lyceums, teacher training, education for girls, literacy. Copied elsewhere.
8. Caused the English to defecate into their pants. For fifteen years Britons walked about unable to sit.

[Bonifatus]

Napoleon was a glorious piece of historical karma. He was born right after the Corsican Republican Government, which had been established after the Corsicans rebelled against Genoa, was captured by the French. Then he proceeded to capture all of France and Genoa (along with much more). So in my book he's good for that alone.

[Ardoki]

Oh god fucking dammit, can we please stop being apologists for maniacal mass murderers? Yes, it was bad that Napoleon brought back slavery, and yes, it was good that Robespierre got rid of it, but seriously, the man was insane. He maintained an almost totalitarian grip on society, you could be killed for voicing you opinion, along with your whole family. Children were murdered just for being noble. Robespierre was not someone I would want within a universe of governance.

Robespierre was more progressive, so I'm personally more fond of him.

[Gim]

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

Actually its fairly well established that he pressured most of his opponents into starting them. I have several sources that examine this if you want (though they may only say it several dozen pages in).

(I'll reply to your main post later - its late here)

Oh, then, he caused havoc. No doubt about that, as long as he had the motive to do so.

[Valaran]

Eh; I had a sudden burst of energy.

Yeah, being sent to work to give your husband all the money is more freedom for women.

Well, given the alternative of not even being able to work at all, it kinda is. And it does mean that widows and the like could work for themselves.

Source?

You even said yourself how often it is reported that poets complaining about such actions. It could be argued as a sign of their incapability of restraining their wives (and I can certainly think of a law course in Athens arguing to that same effect). But even so, there clearly were objections.

There are plenty of female Greeks mentioned in Herodotus.

Having read it quite a lot, such mentions are fairly sparse, and they certainly don't accomplish much. (Gorgio barely gets three lines to herself iirc, though don't quote me on that). Herodotus has plenty of 'barbarian' women, but relatively few Greek ones.

Socrates/Plato (we can never know which one was talking) was actually a proto-feminist, who said women should participate in sports, politics, even the military, making the argument that we don't only take the male dogs when there's a hunt.

Proto-feminist is a bit too far a term personally, and I would equally stress that he is not like many other philosophers and in turn doesn't represent the 'mainstream' social conservatism of Athenian society though I do take your point.

That's true in a technical sense, but drama was, relative to the 19th Century, and new innovation, and women fully participated in its source, which was the Dionysian mysteries, where participants would wear different masks and play different parts. Initially the parts were just satyrs and such, but it got to expand and that's how drama started.

Its not that new though - Satyr plays (by which I don't mean plays with stayrs) have been recorded for a few centuries by the time of the Classical age. Sure it wasn't relative, but it certainly was an established format by the time most of the extant plays were performed.

I'd also add, women quite often are portrayed badly (Clytemnestra; Medea, who both had 'independent spirits') though I will hasten to add I can think of counter examples, both of women who respect their 'proper' role (Penelope) and a few 'radicals' (Antigone).

The mysteries, and by extension the whole religious sphere, is something I will admit is more open to women generally, and that extends to more than drama. But I do stress that this was an (if not the) exception to the rule.

That's because so many records are gone. If our only record of the 19th Century were contemporary histories of it and the top twenty or so writers, women would be largely absent.

That is largely speculation on your part. There's not much to suggest many were like her, and though equally, I can't rule it out, the surviving literature we have was typically male dominated.

Neither male or female citizens existed in France in the sense they did in Athens, since citizens, even those who owned no property, could vote, whereas Napoleon was an autocrat.

This falls under general repression then, rather than gender inequality (actually its a perverse form of equality if neither men nor women had say in their government.)

Also the lack of greek female freedom by means of such restrictions clearly extends into the private sphere (as opposed to the political), which is more what I meant by stating those.

I wasn't using Athens as an example of "relative freedom for women", if you'll care to look.

Yeah, but you were using it as so in relation to France.

I was using them as an objection to the idea that Napoleon was the first one to make egalitarianism "work". Certainly his egalitarianism was not for women or slaves, so if anyone tries to pull that with Athens, I will remind them of that.

Fair enough.
And I do totally agree his egalitarianism is far from all-ecncompassing. I suppose my main issue was simply the comparison to Athens as anything better.

[Morr]

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

Who started the wars, then? I thought he did.

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b62 ... 82aa99.png

[Morr]

Well, given the alternative of not even being able to work at all, it kinda is.

Well, then, women slaves in Athens had more freedom than most women in 19th Century Europe.

And it does mean that widows and the like could work for themselves.

Yeah, good luck with that. Work for women was mainly for the young.

You even said yourself how often it is reported that poets complaining about such actions.

More praising the women who didn't engage in such actions.

It could be argued as a sign of their incapability of restraining their wives (and I can certainly think of a law course in Athens arguing to that same effect). But even so, there clearly were objections.

Oh yes, but it wasn't illegal.

Having read it quite a lot, such mentions are fairly sparse, and they certainly don't accomplish much. (Gorgio barely gets three lines to herself iirc, though don't quote me on that). Herodotus has plenty of 'barbarian' women, but relatively few Greek ones.

He mentions a number of Greek women, they just don't get named and are generally referred to as the wife or daughter or sister of so-and-so.

Proto-feminist is a bit too far a term personally, and I would equally stress that he is not like many other philosophers and in turn doesn't represent the 'mainstream' social conservatism of Athenian society though I do take your point.

I don't think it's too far at all when Plato advocated equal political and civil rights for women. In fact, that's not merely proto-feminism, that was the sole definition of feminism for quite a while.

Its not that new though - Satyr plays (by which I don't mean plays with stayrs) have been recorded for a few centuries by the time of the Classical age. Sure it wasn't relative, but it certainly was an established format by the time most of the extant plays were performed.

Satyr plays aren't really the same as Greek drama, most of the actors have giant dicks attached to them, so them as a male-only thing isn't that weird. Satyr plays were a forerunner of Greek drama as we understand it, and we should look at them as a bridge between Dionysian mysteries and tragedy. Our only surviving one was written long after the early satyr plays by a playwright who sort of disdained convention in many of his plays, we can't even be sure that reflects early satyr plays, and I'd wager it doesn't. I'd imagine most satyr plays before tragedy were focused on the physical actions and reenactments of various Dionysian scenes, as opposed to emphasizing dialogue.

I'd also add, women quite often are portrayed badly (Clytemnestra; Medea, who both had 'independent spirits') though I will hasten to add I can think of counter examples, both of women who respect their 'proper' role (Penelope) and a few 'radicals' (Antigone).

I think Clytemnestra and Medea are portrayed badly for being unjust murderers, not for being "independent spirits". But even such women could be sometimes such women could be empathized with by the audience: the Danaids go to hell for their murders, but they were sympathetic in drama because the audience felt their murders were somewhat reasonable.

That's because so many records are gone. If our only record of the 19th Century were contemporary histories of it and the top twenty or so writers, women would be largely absent.

That is largely speculation on your part. There's not much to suggest many were like her, and though equally, I can't rule it out, the surviving literature we have was typically male dominated.

It certainly is speculation, but no more than your position, since you'd have to admit it would look the same way with 19th Century Europe if the same thing happened.

This falls under general repression then, rather than gender inequality (actually its a perverse form of equality if neither men nor women had say in their government.)

But looking at the rest of 19th Century Europe, Aristocrats and sometimes even just propertied men had a great deal of say in their government,

Also the lack of greek female freedom by means of such restrictions clearly extends into the private sphere (as opposed to the political), which is more what I meant by stating those.

There had been a backlash against female freedom in the private sphere since it reached such a high point in the European Renaissance . King James became so alarmed that he ordered priests to decry it from the pulpit. It was in considerable decline by the 19th Century, and would reach a nadir in the Victorian Period.

Yeah, but you were using it as so in relation to France.

I was using it an example of the principle of egalitarianism functioning prior. If Napoleon's France is to held up as some shining example of egalitarianism functioning for the first time, women probably shouldn't be mentioned, since they certainly did not enjoy an egalitarian position, and anything they did enjoy did not come from Napoleon: http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/TWR-07.html

[Gim]

Who started the wars, then? I thought he did.

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b62 ... 82aa99.png

Are you British?

[United Marxist Nations]

Who started the wars, then? I thought he did.

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b62 ... 82aa99.png

This is brilliant

[Gim]

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b62 ... 82aa99.png

This is brilliant

Yes, I think so, too. Napoleon was an excellent general.

[TomKirk]

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.

Napoleon came to power in 1799

[The Sotoan Union]

He expanded his empire through warfare, did he not?

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

No but he's an underlying cause.

[Gim]

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

No but he's an underlying cause.

That means he is responsible for the wars, so I say he is the cause of it.

[TomKirk]

That's true, but most of those wars weren't started by him.

No but he's an underlying cause.

No, the underlying cause was that European monarchs didn't like France killing their monarch, and that was going to be the case whether France found a good general or not.

[The Sotoan Union]

No but he's an underlying cause.

No, the underlying cause was that European monarchs didn't like France killing their monarch, and that was going to be the case whether France found a good general or not.

The wars of the French Republic are not the wars of Napoleon. The French Republic was defending its sovereignty against hostile neighbors, but Napoleon was trying to dominate Europe. The Coalitions repeatedly offered him peace treaties and recognitions of his titles as late as 1809 but he refused them. They didn't extend similar offers to the French Republic.

[Rio Cana]

Concerning the poll, it seems 3x more NS people think Napoleon was good instead of bad.

This is what the Spanish civilians though about him -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s9vPWDJkh0

[Ardoki]

Concerning the poll, it seems 3x more NS people think Napoleon was good instead of bad.

This is what the Spanish civilians though about him -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s9vPWDJkh0

The Spanish were slaughtering Jews by the thousands. Napoleon ended the Inquisition, he ended the murderous slaughter of innocent people.

[Genivaria]

Ethically speaking Napoleion is kind of a mixed back, he was mostly good I think but there's one thing I can't forgive.
The implementation of slavery in Haiti.