Napoleon, Emperor of France: Great Man or Not?

[hectorberlioz]

means nothing? He didn't have these things to start with. He attained them by his own hard work and merits. You need to distinguish between good and great. A common simpleton can be capable of much good. Does that mean he is great? No! Tuor of Gondolin illustrates it quite well.

yes i can see what Tuor is saying, and I agree with him.
but Napolean is not a great man.
I never said a great man had to be good.
I think that 'great' is quite misused by historians and people.
Naploean: he led (in great confidence) an army to overtake russia.
bloody battles were fought, and napolean eventually took moscow. however, suddenly he abandons moscow.
he leads an army to battle and then leaves the victory prize.
what did he want? what was his purpose? by leaving moscow was he doing anything great? no. he led cazillions of soldiers to death. and for what? nothing. his military genius is perhaps the only thing he was great for.

[Radagast]

You keep on citing Moscow as an example yet Napoleon was forced to abandon it. The Russian Field Marshal, Prince Barclayd e Tolly, operated a tactic of retreating into Russia and burning food and resources as he went, so that Napoleon could not feed his army. It was a brilliant tactic yet it was through no callous or devious intention of Napoleon that his men should suffer.

Indeed, on his Egyptian Campaign, when much of his army was plagued by malaria and so forth, he designated that horses were to be given only to those suffering. When asked which horse he reserved for himself, he replied that they all must obey the rule- starting with him. That, to me, does not make him foolish or unconcerned for his men's lives.

[hectorberlioz]

ok, lets take a look at one of my crazy examples...

is a pebble greater than a doorstop rock just because its prettier?
is ben affleck better than tom hanks because he is more publicised?

napolean may have been a nice 'ole dude.
but overall, what did he really do? he battled, and waged war.
who cares if we rose from corporal. he did it for himself, and his rising from corporal didnt do the world any good...

as for that speech uncle bonaparte made...it may have been those historians who actually said it....

[Captain Stern]

napolean may have been a nice 'ole dude.
but overall, what did he really do? he battled, and waged war.
who cares if we rose from corporal. he did it for himself, and his rising from corporal didnt do the world any good...

Who cares? Not you obviously. Many would agree with you that battle and war isn't a good thing. Like we've been discussing, whether he was good or not is irrelevant. One doesn't just battle and wage war. One isn't handed legions of men to fight and die for you on a continuous basis, going from victory to victory, without being a person both capable and worthy to be given those honours.

What makes a man great? Is it importance to the history of the human race? Is it the degree in which a person has changed the world? Is it success gained by one's own merits? Is it a great mind? Genius? The list is a long and debatable one. Does Napolean fit many of these attributes? Certainly. Might he lack some of these things? Very likely. No one is perfect.


I think it depends what one's personal definition of 'great' is. Yours, hectorbelioz, happens to differ from the commonly accepted definition.

Your view on historians is one I haven't encountered before either; a historian in anything but a romantic. His primary objective is always the pursuit and preservation of facts. Of course, historians of the time under Napoleon's rule may have bent certain truths to make their Emperor look better (unwillingly no doubt). However other countries' historians, which include historians in countries opposed to Napoleon, and all historians after Napoleon lost power, would have no reason to lie. Besides, the fact remains he conquered most of Europe and beyond, there's no disputing that and no historian could make that up.

And why do you focus so much on one failure, namely his camaign in Russia. Contrary to what you may or may not believe, Napoleon waged campaigns in other parts of the world too... in which he experienced great success. Indeed, as Radagast shows us, his withdrawal from Russia wasn't really his fault either.
Like it or not, much good 'did' arise because of Napoleon, whether he intended it or not. All historians agree on that.


I'd be very interested to find out what exactly you think makes a person great, because I'm rather baffled.

as for that speech uncle bonaparte made...it may have been those historians who actually said it....

Not everything you don't like the sound of is automatically untrue

[hectorberlioz]

Stern, thats a very intelligent post.

and you're right, it depends on my definition of great.
lets just leave it at: Napolean is an interesting character, but overall he was just a tyrant.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by hectorberlioz
naploean was a peice of nasty crap.
all he cared about was conquering the world.
you guys need to read 'war and peace'.

I watched the movie of that, and Napoleon was one of my favorite characters. Possibly even my very favorite.

[jerseydevil]

Asking if Napolean was a great man or not is like asking if Hitler was a great man or Billy the Kid. They are all concidered great men by many people - even Hitler is - but that does not mean he was a GOOD man or that he used his greatness for the goodness of mankind. To me some of the great men are - George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas a'Becket, Winston Churchill, Einstein. Were Lenin and Stalin great men? I think they were powerful - not great. There is a difference. Napolean had a HUGE ego. I think great men are ones you can look up to and Napolean isn't someone I would want to look up to unless I wanted to rule the world.

[Radagast]

But what about his firm belief in justice, the overall rule of law and so forth?

There goes the anecdote that a man sent Napoleon a dozen fine cavalry horses hoping to escape prison for tax evasion, in response Napoleon snapped 'Lock him it and tell him he still owes us 500,000 ecus'.

One has to remember that France was in many respects very backward, far, FAR behind England of the period, so what about his great reforms? What about his introduction of an efficient system of taxation?

Of course, with my monarchist principles I cannot ever truly accept Napoleon, who was, after all, an upstart, but he was still, in my view, a great man.

And why, jerseydevil, was Washington anything more than an Englishman who turned traitor? Was Becket anything more than someone who was great friends with Henry, but turned his back on him as soon as he got the See of Canterbury and was killed, not by Henry's order, but by three errant knights?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Radagast
And why, jerseydevil, was Washington anything more than an Englishman who turned traitor?

I guess traitor is all in the eyes of the beholder. But if you go by the kings own feelings - then Washington was not an Englishman, because the king made it perfectly clear when Ben Franklin met with King George to try preventing the Revolutionary War that the king did not consider the colonists englishman. The colonists living in America did not have the same rights and priveledges of an Englishman. So Washington couldn't have been a traitor, since it was clear he was a Virginian.

As for why he was great - it was because he was not after power. He did not seize power, like General Lee would have done had he led the American armies. George Washington also willingly gave up the presidency after two terms - even though the majority of people wanted him for a third. Without a man like Washington - we most likely would have gotten a tyrant or dictator who seized power and refused to give it up and the American Constitution would not have survived past the first presidency. George Washington led the way for all future presidents and set the example.

Was Becket anything more than someone who was great friends with Henry, but turned his back on him as soon as he got the See of Canterbury and was killed, not by Henry's order, but by three errant knights?

As for Thomas a'Becket - if you know anything about him - you would know that King Henry gave him the archibishipric of Canterbury just because Henry thought he was going to be able to control the church through Becket because they were friends. Instead - Becket went with his principals, and gave up his lavish live style he lived under Henry's court and far from being Henry's crony - he was truly Archbiship of Cantebury and did not just do Henry's bidding, but what was good for the Church. Henry felt he could use Becket - so I don't think that Becket turned his back on his friend, he just had better principals than Henry and took his responsibilities that were given to him seriously.

[Radagast]

Alright, I can accept that.