Was Napoleon evil, in your opinion? (Why?)

Growing up in England, I always had the somewhat streotypical view that Napoleon Bonaparte was evil, but the most I knew about him was Trafalgar, Waterloo, and barely any knowledge in those areas.
I remember visiting France, and seeing the Arc de Triomphe, and still thinking he was evil, but wondered on how French people viewed him, as a Hero, an enemy or just another page in history?

After reading many books about Napoleon, I am still confused to whether he was Good, inbetween or Evil, or is it based on perspective.
I would like to know others view on the personal side of Napoleon, was he really evil, as I was brought up to think.
I find it necessary to post this because in the trailer for N:TW, Napoleon is depicted as evil, as in the expressions on his face, and the 'Burn it!' in a gruff voice at the end, and whether that depiction is accurate?

What are your thoughts? My only other comment I would like to add, was Nelson. I think the British view him as a war-hero, and killed by the 'evil' Napoleon, without much research into Napoleon himself.

That is all.

Yes he was an evil bastard. Thats what you wanted to hear right?

Jokes aside morality is not simply black and white. It is always the media that decide who is evil. Most 'Evil' people in history all believed that they were actually doing the right thing. Though you do get the odd psychopath or two.

Well he wouldn't win any Nobel peace prizes would he?

Tad over-partial to warmongering.

Of course, that is why I put a Debatable option with Other and No thoughts. Of course it is debatable, but I was wondering a view on this, not an absolute fact, because of course, it is not that simple. That is why I put Yes I think so so it did not confuse.
I more of view him not quite a twisted pyscho[ath, or as a person wanting to be good, but actually bad. More of as a person who wanted Glory, and Power.

If you follow the 'media' like a lamb, somewhat as I did as a child, than of course your choices are limited. But for those who are not following like a lamb, than I was wondering your independent view. You don't have to post, but I found it would be nice if people would give their reasons, just like you did.

Not Evil. Just slightly power-mad.

Sure, he was a bit megalomanic but I have never thought of him as being evil.

In many ways he was a visionary and in my opinion he is more or less one of history's good guys. He was however a man of his era. Era where war was a legitimate option in diplomacy.

Moved to historical research

Hi ... my opinion is partial but i see him more like an hero than evil. He's a complex personality. He save the republic and his princips. He defended (and maybe saved) our country of stanger invasion (of other monarchy)... and he modernised many civil and state administration and institutions. He maybe had an ideal about an republican european area ... but he want to do this at all price and maybe, after a certain time of power, for his own power thirty and proud.
That we can learn about the revolutionary ideal of this period is that we can do the wealth of a people against him ... against his culture, against his religion or agains his social system. See what happen in Irak and Afghanistan ...
Kiss from France

I hate it when peopel compare Napoleon to Hitler.its degrading to the former and flattering to the latter.

Heck no! He was just power-hungry and megalomaniac. But not evil. never!

Originally Posted by Orko

Heck no! He was just power-hungry and megalomaniac. But not evil. never!

He was power hungry just like Hitler. Often dreamed of European dominance, just like Hitler. Unlike other nations he didn't go to war with only one nation during his campaign, he went to conquer several... just like Hitler. Only difference between Napoleon and Hitler is that one was stopped before even more damage could be done.

Oddly enough, both tyrants put down by our small little forces, in our small little castle of

By that standard, your belowed England is much worse than Hitler because instead of being power hungry to conquer Europe, you did that with... the world.



The all benevolent British Empire fought in Africa (Zulu, Sudan, Boer), in Asia (India, Afghanistan)...

Let's compare Britain and Hitler then
Power hungry? Checked.
Go to war with several nations? Checked.
Use of concentration camps? Checked. The British "invented" them in 1900 during the Boer Wars.

How does it feel to be compared to Hilter based on a few facts like this?

Oddly enough, both tyrants put down by our small little forces, in our small little castle

Yes, and both time using the same strategy. Wait for the Russians to do the job. And since for Hitler the Prussians were not available to help, you waited for the Americans to come to the rescue.


Just to make it clear: I am NOT saying Britain is the same as Hitler. I'm saying it can be presented that way with a few quick and stupid "facts", just like what was just done with Napoleon. Both are just as valid. If you want to dismiss one comparison, you'll have to dismiss the other.

Originally Posted by Steph

By that standard, your belowed England is much worse than Hitler because instead of being power hungry to conquer Europe, you did that with... the world.



The all benevolent British Empire fought in Africa (Zulu, Sudan, Boer), in Asia (India, Afghanistan)...

Let's compare Britain and Hitler then
Power hungry? Checked.
Go to war with several nations? Checked.
Use of concentration camps? Checked. The British "invented" them in 1900 during the Boer Wars.

Yes but didn't execute anyone like the Germans did.

Originally Posted by Steph

By that standard, your belowed England is much worse than Hitler because instead of being power hungry to conquer Europe, you did that with... the world.



The all benevolent British Empire fought in Africa (Zulu, Sudan, Boer), in Asia (India, Afghanistan)...

Let's compare Britain and Hitler then
Power hungry? Checked.
Go to war with several nations? Checked.
Use of concentration camps? Checked. The British "invented" them in 1900 during the Boer Wars.

How does it feel to be compared to Hilter based on a few facts like this?


Yes, and both time using the same strategy. Wait for the Russians to do the job. And since for Hitler the Prussians were not available to help, you waited for the Americans to come to the rescue.


Just to make it clear: I am NOT saying Britain is the same as Hitler. I'm saying it can be presented that way with a few quick and stupid "facts", just like what was just done with Napoleon. Both are just as valid. If you want to dismiss one comparison, you'll have to dismiss the other.

There's a difference in this however. The British Empire established itself as overseers of these people. Yes we took more land than we needed to and have done many a nasty thing but none of our leaders although some being greater than Hitler and Napoleon have ever tried to establish themselves as gods as these two very men tried. Britain was always an empire which always helped providing it was in their interest. This is why it was us who abolished slavery while people such as Napoleon and Hitler supported it.

We was the empire where the sun always shined. Even now, many of those nations still support the commonwealth. What we're doing is trying to discuss individuality here. Although Queen Victoria held much of the world in her hand, she wasn't mad bent on power. There was those who were jealous of the greatest empire ever such as USA and Germany. Funnily enough one turned into an enemy twice and the other planned to make a surprise attack in 1920's. Now Napoleon and Hitler would of probably tried to conjur up some war but not us. Our wise country knew when our size was great enough.

Originally Posted by Bose

I hate it when peopel compare Napoleon to Hitler.its degrading to the former and flattering to the latter.

Napoleon was not evil he did not condemn anyone death, all he wanted was to unite all of Europe under one flag.

Hitler and Stalin were evil. Hitler condemned 6 million jews to death and some of you may be shocked by this but Stalin was actually worse than Hitler. He condemned more than 20 million of his own people to death for simple crimes like stealing ONE potato because you don't have enough money to eat. Some were sent to gulags or also known as work camps. were most of them died there

Originally Posted by Bose

I hate it when peopel compare Napoleon to Hitler.its degrading to the former and flattering to the latter.

Other way around mate, Napoleon was a monster, Hitler was an idealist.

It's nice to see someone using such a well thought argumentation to support his claim.

Originally Posted by Steph

It's nice to see someone using such a well thought argumentation to support his claim.

Ah sorry, I forgot to state that I was speaking from personal experience

Originally Posted by |Sith|Galvanized Iron

Other way around mate, Napoleon was a monster, Hitler was an idealist.

Just wanna make sure we're on the same page; you ARE kidding, right?

Originally Posted by antred

Just wanna make sure we're on the same page; you ARE kidding, right?

I dont think he is.
Welcome to tw-anglo-center!