Was Napoleon Good?

[Socialist Tera]

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.

It is a thing with revolutions, they typically tend to be authoritarian.

[L Ron Cupboard]

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.

A position I normally support, though I must admit I don't lump Napoleon in with Mao, Stalin, Hitler, King Leopold II of Belgium etc.. Though you seem to be blurring Napoleon and Robespierre together a little.

To me Napoleon was a more intriguing character, who had some positives as well as negatives.

Ending the terror - good.
Making things more meritocratic, particularly in the army - good
His approach to slavery, and revolts, particularly in French colonies - bad
His attitude to the rights of women - bad

[The Sotoan Union]

In the end I would say Napoleon was a power hungry tyrant who was responsible for one of the largest wars in European history. That he was a competent leader who did a lot of good for France doesn't mean that he wasn't.

[Russo-Byzantine Empire]

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.

It is a thing with revolutions, they typically tend to be authoritarian.

Yes, revolutions tend to be authoritarian, but that doesn't have to transition into what Robespierre did. By murdering so many of his people, he lost the right to call himself heir leader, though the legitimate leader was always Louis, or Napoleon later on.

[Aelex]

Good.

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

Fact: France has been the European's military and diplomatic powerhouse since the 9th century. Now, after one century of déchéance of it's military role from 1860 to 1960; France had took back it's place.

[Aelex]

Yes they were an ally of the peasantry in the overthrow of Feudalism and they too suppressed feudal elements and broke the back of the Church by confiscating their land.

Actually, servage had more or less dissapeared since the 15th century and given that France had been an Absolute Monarchy since Louis XIV, Feudalism was pretty much gone too by that time.

For the Déchristiannisation, it's, however more or less true except that it's way more nuanced. The République basically bought the lands of the Church in exchange of salarying the clergymen. A position which was enfored and clarified later by the Concordat which was ratified by the Pope and Napoléon.

[Napkiraly]

Good.

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

Fact: France has been the European's military and diplomatic powerhouse since the 9th century. Now, after one century of déchéance of it's military role from 1860 to 1960; France had took back it's place.

Eh? Someone is forgetting about the HRE and Byzantine Empire, which were considerably more powerful and influential in Europe at various points.

[Napkiraly]

The allied intervention wasn't until late spring 1918, where as the civil war started with Bolshevik's launching a coup in 1917.

Also mind reminding me what happened to Georgia in 1921? Where it underwent forced regime change at the end of the Red Army's guns, to impose a Bolshevik regime.

Same happened in Azerbaijan. Same happened in Armenia. Same with Ukraine. And the Bolshevik's supported the Finnish Red Guards and gave them logistical support and attempted military support. They only gave up once the Finnish Whites had won and they were incapable of pressing on due to other concerns.

No, we're pointing out how it's hypocritical to denounce people who admire Napoleon because he did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist while you go on supporting Lenin who did bad things, oppressed people, and was an imperialist.

These regions were already a part of the Russian Empire and such the Bolshevik took power in all these areas. They didnt annex them. They inherited them from Tsarism and legally gave them the opportunity to leave of their own choosing. The Finns declared independance before the civil war even broke out and did so because the Bolsheviks declared the right of secession.
It's not imperialism since the Soviet Union invested evenly in all their Republics. Imperialism presupposes the exploitation of these regions. As for the Baltic and Polish regime changes I am not in support of these

They didn't inherit them. They were republics wishing to make a go of it on their own. Ffs, most of Armenia had just broken off from the Ottoman Empire. And the Bolsheviks still tried to help the Red Finns, and giving what the end result was for the other times they did so in places like Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, Finland would have been annexed if the Red Finns won.

Lenin was an imperialist. Napoleon was an imperialist. Samesies.

[New Benian Republic]

These regions were already a part of the Russian Empire and such the Bolshevik took power in all these areas. They didnt annex them. They inherited them from Tsarism and legally gave them the opportunity to leave of their own choosing. The Finns declared independance before the civil war even broke out and did so because the Bolsheviks declared the right of secession.
It's not imperialism since the Soviet Union invested evenly in all their Republics. Imperialism presupposes the exploitation of these regions. As for the Baltic and Polish regime changes I am not in support of these

They didn't inherit them. They were republics wishing to make a go of it on their own. Ffs, most of Armenia had just broken off from the Ottoman Empire. And the Bolsheviks still tried to help the Red Finns, and giving what the end result was for the other times they did so in places like Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, Finland would have been annexed if the Red Finns won.

Lenin was an imperialist. Napoleon was an imperialist. Samesies.

Lenin still have his dick though.

[Napkiraly]

They didn't inherit them. They were republics wishing to make a go of it on their own. Ffs, most of Armenia had just broken off from the Ottoman Empire. And the Bolsheviks still tried to help the Red Finns, and giving what the end result was for the other times they did so in places like Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine, Finland would have been annexed if the Red Finns won.

Lenin was an imperialist. Napoleon was an imperialist. Samesies.

Lenin still have his dick though.

About the only thing he has above Napoleon.

Napoleon had far more swagger.

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

Fact: France has been the European's military and diplomatic powerhouse since the 9th century. Now, after one century of déchéance of it's military role from 1860 to 1960; France had took back it's place.

Eh? Someone is forgetting about the HRE and Byzantine Empire, which were considerably more powerful and influential in Europe at various points.

The HRE is a little debatable given how loosely they existed as an entity.

[New Benian Republic]

Eh? Someone is forgetting about the HRE and Byzantine Empire, which were considerably more powerful and influential in Europe at various points.

The HRE is a little debatable given how loosely they existed as an entity.

And France had modern weaponry.

[Greater Cilicia]

Napoleon was a benevolent dictator.

What he did was noble, if not entirely good. He fought for his country, he made it strong again.

He had a flame, a flame that burned brighter than the sun.

You know what he started out as?

I minor corsican noble.

He rose from almost nothing (or at least in those times almost nothing) to bring the Emperor of France!

Vive l'France! Vive l'empereur!

[Napkiraly]

Eh? Someone is forgetting about the HRE and Byzantine Empire, which were considerably more powerful and influential in Europe at various points.

The HRE is a little debatable given how loosely they existed as an entity.

High Middle Ages HRE was more robust. By the Early Modern Period, definitely so.

And France wasn't really much better for a good portion of the middle ages, when royal power was laughable and the various lords pretty much had free reign.

[SD_Film Artists]

He was bad in being imperialistic, but he wasn't as bad as the other European powers made him out to be. He created alot of good reforms in French law and some of the wars within the Napoleonic wars were defencive (monarchist ractions to French revolutionism spreading further).

[Aelex]

Eh? Someone is forgetting about the HRE and Byzantine Empire, which were considerably more powerful and influential in Europe at various points.

On a pure military level :
Well, H.R.E was more of a glass canon. It could indeed be quite powerful in some situation but in the end, the Princes were too independent from the Emperor, and that particularly after the neo-feudalistic movement which occured in the late Middle Age, and the Realm too decentralized to actually be really powerful.
For the Byzantine Empire, I wouldn't classify it as European at all but rather as Oriental. And while it was without doubt the most powerful State in the whole Mediterranean World from the 4th century to the 7th, in the end, the Muslims Invasions wrecked it too much for it to conserve this place after the end of the High Middle Age.

Now, on an influential one :
While Byzantine Culture, especially in the last century before it's fall, were marvelous; it, in the end, not influenced the "West" much.

For French culture, however, things are differents. From England to Middle East passing by Italy, the French basically conquered and spread the French language and culture all over the Mediterranean World, influencing durably a lot of culture in the process.

So, no. In the end; France do was the European Diplomatic and Military Powerhouse from the 9th century to nowadays (with a one century break from 1860 to 1960).

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Lenin still have his dick though.

About the only thing he has above Napoleon.

Napoleon had far more swagger.

What's all this about Napoleon's penis not being attached to his body?

[Aelex]

What's all this about Napoleon's penis not being attached to his body?

An infected mushroom thread...

[Napkiraly]

Eh? Someone is forgetting about the HRE and Byzantine Empire, which were considerably more powerful and influential in Europe at various points.

On a pure military level :
1)Well, H.R.E was more of a glass canon. It could indeed be quite powerful in some situation but in the end, the Princes were too independent from the Emperor, and that particularly after the neo-feudalistic movement which occured in the late Middle Age, and 2)the Realm too decentralized to actually be really powerful.
3)For the Byzantine Empire, I wouldn't classify it as European at all but rather as Oriental. And while it was without doubt the most powerful State in the whole Mediterranean World from the 4)4th century to the 7th, in the end, the Muslims Invasions wrecked it too much for it to conserve this place after the end of the High Middle Age.

Now, on an influential one :
5)While Byzantine Culture, especially in the last century before it's fall, were marvelous; it, in the end, not influenced the "West" much.

For French culture, however, things are differents. From England to Middle East passing by Italy, the French basically conquered and spread the French language and culture all over the Mediterranean World, influencing durably a lot of culture in the process.

6)So, no. In the end; France do was the European Diplomatic and Military Powerhouse from the 9th century to nowadays (with a one century break from 1860 to 1960).

1) As I said, it depends on when it's history we are talking about and which ruler. There were times when it was quite a cohesive and unified entity. And medieval France was no different. In the 11th century royal power was a joke and it wasn't until the 12th century that it started to recover in earnest, and even then it had to deal with half its lands belonging to lords pledging vassalage to the Plantagenets (both the Angevin Empire and later during the Hundred Years War). France didn't start to become a significantly centralized state until the second half of the 15th century and didn't complete the process until the 17th.
2) See above how France wasn't that much different for a long time.
3) A Greek empire is Oriental? lel wut?
4) I'll give you that by the 9th century its power had waned considerably from its high point, during the 9th, 10th, and first half of the 11th centuries, they were far more centralized, economically powerful, and militarily superior. They just had the misfortune of being surrounded by people that wanted what they had.
5) We're not talking about cultural influence, so that can be scrapped as a point of the discussion right here and now.
6) It was one of the big military and diplomatic powers, but it wasn't always the dominant one. And this is just the middle ages, in the early modern period you have the Spanish Empire and the Habsburgs in general which dominated Western Europe throughout the 16th century and the first half of the 17th. Then by the 18th century when it was the dominant military and diplomatic power, it was having to contend with the likes of Austria and Prussia on land, then the UK at sea which were hot on their tails in terms of capability.

[Aelex]

1) As I said, it depends on when it's history we are talking about and which ruler. There were times when it was quite a cohesive and unified entity. And medieval France was no different. In the 11th century royal power was a joke and it wasn't until the 12th century that it started to recover in earnest, and even then it had to deal with half its lands belonging to lords pledging vassalage to the Plantagenets (both the Angevin Empire and later during the Hundred Years War). France didn't start to become a significantly centralized state until the second half of the 15th century and didn't complete the process until the 17th.
2) See above how France wasn't that much different for a long time.
3) A Greek empire is Oriental? lel wut?
4) I'll give you that by the 9th century its power had waned considerably from its high point, during the 9th, 10th, and first half of the 11th centuries, they were far more centralized, economically powerful, and militarily superior. They just had the misfortune of being surrounded by people that wanted what they had.
5) We're not talking about cultural influence, so that can be scrapped as a point of the discussion right here and now.
6) It was one of the big military and diplomatic powers, but it wasn't always the dominant one. And this is just the middle ages, in the early modern period you have the Spanish Empire and the Habsburgs in general which dominated Western Europe throughout the 16th century and the first half of the 17th. Then by the 18th century when it was the dominant military and diplomatic power, it was having to contend with the likes of Austria and Prussia on land, then the UK at sea which were hot on their tails in terms of capability.

Fair enough. While my bias may tend to make me over-estimate my country a little, I have to admit that what you say is true rather than sink into displaced nationalism.
I thereby recognize the wrongness of my argument and will settle for the truth which is that, while France had it's times as a dominating power in Europe (mainly under Saint Louis, Philippe Auguste and le Bel, Louis XIV and Napoléon) it wasn't The Major Power of Europe (nor the World) for all the time even if it remained, and is still remaining, one of the Great Powers of both Europe and the world.

[Trotskylvania]

There is a strong correlation between the length if Napoleonic occupation of a nation and how well it prospered in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Napoleon was instrumental to the destruction of the ancien regime in Europe, and the spread of liberal ideas and capitalist political economy. Without him or someone like him, capitalism would have been stillborn, and the struggle against feudal reaction would be far more protracted. It is possible it might have prevailed in the end, and we would be poorer for it.

[Rio Cana]

Napoleon was bad news for Spain but good news for Spanish America.

The first decisive attempt by a Spanish American colony to gain independence from Spain was made by Venezuela. In 1808 the armies of French emperor Napoleon I overran Spain and Portugal. They deposed Ferdinand VII of Spain. In 1810 the Creoles in the cabildo, or town council, of Caracas overthrew the Spanish authorities and formed a junta, or governing body, to rule in the name of the king. However, the junta soon threw aside all pretense of loyalty to the Spanish crown and issued a formal declaration of independence on July 5, 1811.

This could be the first anti-Napoleon song. The first so called Patriotic song (unofficial anthem of Venezuela) is the following. Its from 1811. It differs somewhat from the official anthem of 1881. This unofficial version mentions the "usurper" of the Spanish crown which would be Napoleons brother which Napoleon placed on the throne. It also mentions the "Fraud" of it all.

Unofficial 1811 anthem - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaZT558XzkI

This is the official anthem used since 1881 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV7BRdE_YIo

[Greater North American Confederacy]

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.

He came to power in 1799

[Ganos Lao]

Good.

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

Fact: France has been the European's military and diplomatic powerhouse since the 9th century. Now, after one century of déchéance of it's military role from 1860 to 1960; France had took back it's place.

I will never understand how people came up with this "French just surrender lol" stereotype when for centuries, long before 1860, they were the nation in Europe.

I mean, French was a second language for many back then.

[Baltenstein]

Fact: France has been the European's military and diplomatic powerhouse since the 9th century. Now, after one century of déchéance of it's military role from 1860 to 1960; France had took back it's place.

I will never understand how people came up with this "French just surrender lol" stereotype when for centuries, long before 1860, they were the nation in Europe.

Only Americans whose knowledge about European military history starts and ends with WW2 think that.

The same people who think that Germany historically is THE military juggernaut by nature, when, for most of the time before the mid-19th century, German military history consisted mostly of infighting and getting invaded and occupied by foreign powers (France chiefly among them).