I think, much like Hitler, people try and romanticise him, and prefer to focus on the quirks of his private life, rather than as a cruel despot who wanted nothing more than to control the whole of Europe.
Did his conquests and rule have a large impact on modern Europe? Discuss.
That's like asking if the Roman Empire made an impact on modern Europe. Aside from anything else he made sure us Brits got a raw deal by making his soldiers march on the other side of the road. If I ever want to buy a foreign car I'd have to spend a mint at a garage to switch it to right hand drive. Bloody Napoleon.
I think, much like Hitler, people try and romanticise him, and prefer to focus on the quirks of his private life, rather than as a cruel despot who wanted nothing more than to control the whole of Europe.
All Bonaparte wanted was to benefit him, but in doing so, he benefited the population, in a way. He did act like a true Prince, and he was fairly successful. His only mistake was not to protect the new land he had conquered, which led to his downfall.
That's like asking if the Roman Empire made an impact on modern Europe. Aside from anything else he made sure us Brits got a raw deal by making his soldiers march on the other side of the road. If I ever want to buy a foreign car I'd have to spend a mint at a garage to switch it to right hand drive. Bloody Napoleon.
Most of the roads he planned to built are still in use today. They have been reformed but they were necessary in war-torn France during the Great War. By that time, they had been expanded and had trenches dug on the sides of them, to stop any incoming convoy.
He was a typical tyrant. However, that still cannot take away his military brilliance. As far as I'm concerned, he was one of the, if not the the, best general of all time.
All Bonaparte wanted was to benefit him, but in doing so, he benefited the population, in a way.
How exactly? If the populations benefitted so much, why were there consistently strong partisan movements in all of his conquered territories? Local populations had to pay much more in tribute, of both commodities and conscripts for his armies. French oppression did not benefit local populaces.
His only mistake was not to protect the new land he had conquered, which led to his downfall.
He did have to protect his own lands. He left massive garrisons in both Portugal and Spain to control his empire through fear. In both countries he was driven out every step of the way. His mistake was to invade Russia and chase Zhukov through the winter.
Most of the roads he planned to built are still in use today. They have been reformed but they were necessary in war-torn France during the Great War. By that time, they had been expanded and had trenches dug on the sides of them, to stop any incoming convoy.
A small joke of mine. I'm sure he contributed to infrastructure, but the face of Europe was never the same after Bonaparte. He had a massive geo political impact on Europe, the effects of which felt right up until WW1. It entrenched Russia's position as the gendarme of Europe, and galvanised the Prussian aristocracy to unite and rule over the new state of Germany. In short, the consequences of his actions were so far reaching it is too hard to describe in a short post, and right now I can't be bothered with a very long one.
As far as I'm concerned, he was one of the, if not the the, best general of all time.
I'm inclined to agree with you there. It's always hard to compare unlike with unlike, but I think in terms of the level of his success within his own historical context, he's certainly the most successful.
Was Bonaparte a tyrant? Well in the logical aspects yes. He fits the role of a tyrant, but let us not forget the time period we're talking about.
Bonaparte took over France after the period known as the Reign of Terror. This period within the french revolution saw thousands dead under false charges. This movement was led by a former lawyer Maximillian Robspierre. Afterward there were a few years of realitive peace where a semi democratic system was set up. However, this system was bogged down with bureaucrats and got little done. The people were once again on the verge of revolution. Bonaparte's intervention stopped an all out French civil war.
Now, the man was ruthless on the battlefield and this is where several factors that tie into he despotism. But, overall he did a great deal of good for his empire. He furthered education, brought together just laws, supported women's rights to some degree and allowed those to keep their faith. The man was arrogant and blood thirsty, but he was a good ruler. Yes, he brought about much suffering and a system the people did not care for, but in the long run he was a great influence culturally, militarilly for all of modern Europe.
He's the namesake of a psychological complex, and one of the most successful generals ever, below only Khalid ibn al-Walid and a handful of others. He also did all of the stuff Wolf said.
He left a bittersweet footprint, really. He helped culture, but was murder on the treatment of the population.
Was Bonaparte a tyrant? Well in the logical aspects yes. He fits the role of a tyrant, but let us not forget the time period we're talking about.
I'm not talking about his rule over France. Many were indeed happy to have some order after the chaos of the revolution. That said, I think it's very telling that in order to perpetuate his rule, 80,000 young Frenchmen were conscripted into his armies every year to feed the meat grinder.
But it's really the conquered territories I am talking about, where he was most tyrannical. Particularly in Spain where he faced perhaps the fiercest guerilla resistance, the behaviour of the occupying troops was deplorable by any standard, and is only glossed over because of his great military achievements.
He turned France into an Empire and made himself emperor, completely destroying the progression of the French revolution, while at the same time causing destruction and deaths of millions of troops.
But it's really the conquered territories I am talking about, where he was most tyrannical. Particularly in Spain where he faced perhaps the fiercest guerilla resistance, the behaviour of the occupying troops was deplorable by any standard, and is only glossed over because of his great military achievements.
He didn't govern these territories, he put several of his family members in charge. These people were perhaps some of the worst rulers in all of history.
He turned France into an Empire and made himself emperor, completely destroying the progression of the French revolution, while at the same time causing destruction and deaths of millions of troops
Napoleon stepped in to bring stability to France. While it may not have been his main goal, and he committed several attrociities the French Revolution was a failure. It wasn't until the Revolutions of 1848 that the long term effects of Napoleon and the French Revolution were truly felt. Napoleon did a lot of good and bad things. He, like the French Revolution failed in the short run and succeeded in the long run. This is not romanticizing, this is historical fact.
I agree with Wolf that we need to remember the century of hellish despotism all over Europe, Russia and China, etc. The French people were screaming for a leader and they got one of the very best. Yes, he was tyranical and a bit mynical but hey, he envented the tin can!
He did have to protect his own lands. He left massive garrisons in both Portugal and Spain to control his empire through fear. In both countries he was driven out every step of the way. His mistake was to invade Russia and chase Zhukov through the winter.
Huh that seems to happen alot through history. When will people just realize, you cant take russia.
supported women's rights to some degree
Seriously? He was a guy, right?
Hey let's not forget the Lousisiana purchase. Who knows how the states would of turned out without that deal.
