About Napolean...

[Emperor Tom]

I actually only know a little about him in terms of what he accomplished and his inglorious defeat, where he was born, becoming emperor, etc., etc. But what I dont know about is his personality. I know his wife was dominant in the relationship and that he was short, the History channel portrays him as evil. Anyways can someone tell more about his personal life and the person he was and stay off the military topics...PLEASE!!!

[{II}Sovereign]

I actually only know a little about him in terms of what he accomplished and his inglorious defeat, where he was born, becoming emperor, etc., etc. But what I dont know about is his personality. I know his wife was dominant in the relationship and that he was short, the History channel portrays him as evil. Anyways can someone tell more about his personal life and the person he was and stay off the military topics...PLEASE!!!

To fully understand Napoleon you must understand his passion and rise in merit during his years as an artillery officer and then beyond...

[Landsknecht_88]

You might want to know that Napoleon was not short. It is a common misconception. He was around the average French height of the time.

Link: http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/...leonheight.htm

There's more links if you search: napoleon short myth

[wearenemesis]

Actually Napoleon wasn't really that short. I forget the details but the system of measurement was different in France and Britain so that screwed things up. Marching alongside the Old Guard many times (who as grenadiers had to be like 6'1 or taller i think) made him seem shorter than he really was.

The whole short thing was mostly British propaganda. I think he was like 5'6? Which is like average even for today's standards.

[Landsknecht_88]

Actually Napoleon wasn't really that short. I forget the details but the system of measurement was different in France and Britain so that screwed things up. Marching alongside the Old Guard many times (who as grenadiers had to be like 6'1 or taller i think) made him seem shorter than he really was.

Indeed. The elite soldiers in European armies at the time were usually between 180 and 190cm, sometimes even as tall as 200cm, so it is not particularly strange if he was perceived as short alongside them.

[Archus]

He was determined, clever and ambitious. He didn't trust anyone and was ruthless as both an Emperor and a General.

[Landsknecht_88]

He was determined, clever and ambitious. He didn't trust anyone and was ruthless as both an Emperor and a General.

I have never got the impression of Napoleon being particularly ruthless. Care to give an example? I'm not so much interested in arguing, but your claim had me interested.

[Archus]

Russia was pretty ruthless, he drove his men on despite a Russian scorched earth policy trying to force a decisive battle out of the Russians - Borodino.

Spain was a fairly ruthless move too, under the guise of attacking Portugal he took over Spain and deposed Ferdinand for his brother.

Ruthlessness perhaps wasn't his most obvious trait but I felt it warranted a mention. Perhaps his ruthlessness also had something to do with his dogged determination/stubbornness in the face of defeat

[cegorach]

I actually only know a little about him in terms of what he accomplished and his inglorious defeat, where he was born, becoming emperor, etc., etc. But what I dont know about is his personality. I know his wife was dominant in the relationship and that he was short, the History channel portrays him as evil. Anyways can someone tell more about his personal life and the person he was and stay off the military topics...PLEASE!!!

Nothing suprising. When I visited Britain for the first time the first book I've spotted was 'Napoleon - the bisexual emperor'. 'Welcome to Britain' I said to myself...


It is the British and by extension (despite the fact they fought against the Brits at that time...) the Americans and they media who managed to turn the discussion about Napoleon into a farce because the enemy of Britain had to be the enemy of humanity itself.

It is much more reasonable in continental Europe, though varies beween Spain where he was despised (on avarage) and Poland where he was adored (on avarage).
It is a good idea to think of him as a modern conqueror. Politician who amazed and shocked the continent and made a huge impact in history.
Similar to Alexander or Julius Ceasar, but not Hitler or other nutjob.

Napoleon fought against people who were often worse than he was. He was not the enemy of the human kind Hitler or Stalin surely were, but a man living among comparable leaders.
The problem that he was just more successful and led a country which was considered dangerous by monarchs of the age - to them he was a warhound of the revolution, but comparing him to gillotine addicted fanatics is just silly. Yet it happens, sometimes on subconscious levels (Britain).

Some achievements of Napoleon clearly outlast his life and made him immortal in so many ways. For example the Code Civil - the Napoleon's legal codex which influenced the law in most of the world.
That is why I compared him to Ceasar - Julius would be little known if it wasn't the calendar, the literature and other areas of human life which was affected by this man.


I guess you could call him the Alexander, the JFK and Brad Pitt of the XIXth century - a charismatic and popular politician with clear achievements beyond the warfare and finally because of his personal qualities (and the death in exile, love for Josephine etc) a celebrity.

[Odovacar]

It is the British and by extension (despite the fact they fought against the Brits at that time...) the Americans and they media who managed to turn the discussion about Napoleon into a farce because the enemy of Britain had to be the enemy of humanity itself.

Napoleon's bad fame started very early. Many of his contemporaries adored him, even the soldiers who guarded him on St. Helena. However, already after 1806 Napoleon's fame went downward quickly.
He was still respected as a general but scorned at as a personality. It's important to understand Napooleon rose to fame as a revolutionary artillery officer.
Upon the height of his fame he executed innocents (like the prince of Enghien) awakened german nationalism with his behaviour, invaded Spain which was his servant before anyway, (just not enough effective) and forced a blockade on Europe which economically hurted it. In addition to that he ventured into one of the poorest countries of Europe, only to be defeated, and thus he lost hundred of thousands of people.

Yes, he was ruthless, he remarked many times that 20 000 ore more people doesn't count for a man like him, whether dead or alive, that germans and italians in his army may die, he doesn't care....
When Napleon scored his first victories his enemies were old aristocrats, corrupt, despised monarchies..and he was young hero Bonaparte. Later, he made heros from his enemies. People in Europe enjoyed the victory of Waterloo as if this would be their victory, not that of monarchs and their pets.

And more or less, this was the victory of peoples who rose against Napoleons tyranny, just as Leipzig was.

[CiviC]

People in Europe enjoyed the victory of Waterloo as if this would be their victory, not that of monarchs and their pets.

And more or less, this was the victory of peoples who rose against Napoleons tyranny, just as Leipzig was.

And very soon the peoples of Europe came to regret Napoleon and made him a romantic symbol of all revolutionaries fighting the despotic regimes restaured at the Congress of Vienna.

Even the Spanish who were the most fierce enemies of the French during Napoleon, regreted the liberal regime of his brother, King Joseph and the Constitution of 1810.

I m not saying that, you guys tend thinking just about his military exploits in open battles when you're talking about that French.. Venetian people in 2003 sentenced Napoleon as a war criminal for what he did (i m not talking about military).

That's BS.

Here is an article about this mascarade :

Symbolic legal hearing of Napoleon Bonaparte’s case took place in Venice. After questioning 18 witnesses dressed in XVIII century outfit and listening to the prosecutor and defense, the court, in accordance with the contemporary international law, recognized Napoleon to be guilty in plundering and destroying Venice Republic having 1000-year history. The public in the big hall of the Venice Palace supported this sentence.

Napoleon who was General Bonaparte at that time, had a quick march across the North of Italy in 1796 and conquered all the small separate states. Then he united them under his protectorate, modernized their political and legal system and in this way established the conditions for “Rizordzhimento” – uniting Appenin Peninsula people under one country – Italy which took place 60 years later.


Among the states conquered by Napoleon was ancient “Republic Serenissima”. By that time it had already lost its power and cultural potential of XIII – XVI centuries when its war ships controlled all Adriatic area, its territory stretched from the Alps to Cyprus. It was famous with its masquerades, Tician and Veroneze created their masterpieces there.

In fact, Napoleon’s occupation only fixed the existing degradation of the republic. Moreover, his proponents assure that he brought new perspectives to the declining city. Nevertheless, according to the “laws of war”, he robbed many cultural and financial valuables. In particular, he destroyed the Venice military fleet and took the famous sculpture of St Mark’s horses to Paris (this sculpture was brought to Venice from Constantinople after its plundering by crusaders in 1204) and painting “marriage in Kana Galileiskay” by Veroneze. In a course of time, the hourses were returned to the pediment of St Mark Church in Venice, but the horses are still in Louver.

The hearing of Napoleon’s case was arranged after an Italian bank and “Napoleon Society” purchased the statue of Napoleon with the intention to put it on the St Mark Square. However, the statue would not be allowed to be erected on this historic square even without conducting this legal hearing: it was placed in the museum of history of Venice.
Not everybody perceives this legal hearing as joke. This “joke” is in favor of ultra-rightists separatists promoting the idea of establishing “Padanskaya Republic” in Veneto region. They say this republic should have no authorities who are strangers to Venice people – the authority of Rome, mafia-driven Sicily, Yugoslavians, Albanians, Kenyans and other nationalities.

According to Reuters, businessman from Paduya Tulio Beretta, dressed in a cocked hat of XVIII century, said: "We have to liberate ourselves again. We don’t want violence, we are not Iraqis or Basks, we are civilized people. However, the world should know that we are still occupied!”

This seems to me more like a Northern League publicity stunt. Oh, his great crime is terminating the old decrepite Republic, Habsburgs would have did it anyway probably. Oh, he stole the Horses, who Venitians had stollen themselves from Byzance. Venitians forgot how they sacked Constantinople in 1204.

As far as I know Italians don't hate Napoleon and they recognise his merits in the history of Italy.

[DAVIDE]

That's BS.

Here is an article about this mascarade :

This seems to me more like a Northern League publicity stunt. Oh, his great crime is terminating the old decrepite Republic, Habsburgs would have did it anyway probably. Oh, he stole the Horses, who Venitians had stollen themselves from Byzance. Venitians forgot how they sacked Constantinople in 1204.

As far as I know Italians don't hate Napoleon and they recognise his merits in the history of Italy.

Part you underlined on the article is the pure opinion of journalist not the Venetian one or their people. Oh sure in the sacking of 1204 what Venice did? climbing the walls? Mass murders, did they humiliate the town? Venetians sold or gifted the town to Chinese without Byzantine permission, did they? no they just "sacked" the town taking away some precious items of Venetian historic relevance, especially related to their saints. And if you read the chronicles, serial murders, mass theft, rapery etc. have been made by the French.. oh yes, Venetians werent the only ones in that place

[CiviC]

Part you underlined on the article is the pure opinion of journalist not the Venetian one or their people.

I don't think some extremists represent the people of Venice.

Oh sure in the sacking of 1204 what Venice did? climbing the walls? Mass murders, did they humiliate the town? Venetians sold or gifted the town to Chinese without Byzantine permission, did they? no they just "sacked" the town taking away some precious items of Venetian historic relevance, especially related to their saints. And if you read the chronicles, serial murders, mass theft, rapery etc. have been made by the French.. oh yes, Venetians werent the only ones in that place

Still the Venitians were the instigators of the Sack so the main responsability is theirs.

On topic, what horible massacres did Napoleon in Italy?

The peoples suffered because of the ultra-conservative Metternich-style thinking of the Holy Alliance.
Still Napoleon's rule wasn't beneficial for most of them...only the french thrived, and that was Napoleon's final goal as well. The Holy Alliance was the tyranny of monarchism, Napoleon's was the tyranny of a modern burgeois order, without the democratic system, of course.
Napoleon's tyranny was beneficial in its modernizational role, but for long it couldn't last.

There was no democracy, but where there was such thing in the begining of 1800's? Not even Great Britain was a democracy, it was an oligarchy.

If Napoleon is rightly to be praised for his modernisation, he is to be blamed for awakening nationalism, too.

And why is he to be blamed? Peoples wanting to be free not opressed by Empires or living divided is a bad thing? The creation of nations and nation-states was a great progress for Europe. Of course it was not the intent of Napoleon for this course of events.

[Odovacar]

And very soon the peoples of Europe came to regret Napoleon and made him a romantic symbol of all revolutionaries fighting the despotic regimes restaured at the Congress of Vienna.

Even the Spanish who were the most fierce enemies of the French during Napoleon, regreted the liberal regime of his brother, King Joseph and the Constitution of 1810.

The peoples suffered because of the ultra-conservative Metternich-style thinking of the Holy Alliance.
Still Napoleon's rule wasn't beneficial for most of them...only the french thrived, and that was Napoleon's final goal as well. The Holy Alliance was the tyranny of monarchism, Napoleon's was the tyranny of a modern burgeois order, without the democratic system, of course.
Napoleon's tyranny was beneficial in its modernizational role, but for long it couldn't last.

If Napoleon is rightly to be praised for his modernisation, he is to be blamed for awakening nationalism, too.

[cegorach]

Napoleon's bad fame started very early. Many of his contemporaries adored him, even the soldiers who guarded him on St. Helena. However, already after 1806 Napoleon's fame went downward quickly.

And more or less, this was the victory of peoples who rose against Napoleons tyranny, just as Leipzig was.

That is all true and I am clearly biased being Polish (despite the Haiti expedition) since Napoleon deserves a place of honour in our history. I am almost feeling I owe him something, personally.

Still with so immense legacy, clearly more positive than negative I'd say.

[Jaketh]

Napoleon was pretty badass, i read a biography on him a couple times, he was not the "evil emperor" the British make everyone think he was

[DAVIDE]

Napoleon was pretty badass, i read a biography on him a couple times, he was not the "evil emperor" the British make everyone think he was

He wasnt? In Italy he did act like the Nazi man

[Darsh]

He wasnt? In Italy he did act like the Nazi man

>>>learn history<<<

Historians of Napoleon are apt either to be fascinated into adulation by his personality or repelled by the spectacle of the many soldiers sacrificed to his ambition. Wrote Felix Markham "It is tempting to compare him with the dictators of a later age, such as Hitler, but the comparison is really misleading. Napoleon did not owe his rise to power to the arts of a demagogue or a party-manager (though he was no mean exponent of the art of propaganda), but to his transcendent ability as a military leader and as a ruler. Such a combination of qualities can hardly be paralleled in the modern world; and he is more akin to the world conquerors of ancient times, who were his inspiration." (For example Julis Caesar amd Alexander the Great).

Napoleon was not particularly cruel, wicked or vindictive; his sins were on the heroic scale - the sins of pride. Even his enemies admitted that he waged war according to the accepted standards of his age.

>>>learn history<<<

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Em...tm#_and_Hitler

[Emperor Tom]

He wasnt? In Italy he did act like the Nazi man

Yes, a traitor to his own people! Yes thats right "Napoléon Bonaparte" or should I say Napoleone di Buonaparte was an Italian, and of noble status no doubt! He attacks his own people! He must be sick!

[Darsh]

Yes, a traitor to his own people! Yes thats right "Napoléon Bonaparte" or should I say Napoleone di Buonaparte was an Italian, and of noble status no doubt! He attacks his own people! He must be sick!

His people was french like Obama's people is american,
He was the general of the french Italian army and fought the ennemies of his nation because the monarchies would remove the french republic.

First Coalition (1792-1797)
In autumn 1792, several European powers formed the First Coalition against France. The first major operation, the annexation of Nice by some 30,000 French troops, was reversed when the Republican forces were withdrawn to deal with a revolt in Lyon, triggering a Piedmontese invasion of Savoy in mid-1793. With the suppression of the revolt in Lyon, General Kellermann managed to push back the Piedmontese with just 12,000 troops, winning engagements at Argentines and St Maurice in September and October of the same year.

The conflict soon escalated with Austrian and Neapolitan forces being mobilised for an invasion of southern France to recover Nice and strike into Provence. The Allied forces were reinforced to some 45,000 Austrians, Piedmontese, and Neapolitans supported by the Royal Navy. Before the Allies could launch this assault the new commander of the French Army of Italy launched the Saorgio Offensive, which was planned by the army's artillery commander, General Napoleon Bonaparte. This two-pronged French offensive drove back the Allied force, despite their strong positions and firmly captured the mountain passes that led into Piedmont. A new offensive, again devised by General Bonaparte, was similarly successful despite its more complicated nature, calling for the co-ordination of the Army of Italy and the Army of the Alps.

Further assaults on the Allied positions were called off under orders from war minister Carnot who was concerned about supply lines being cut by rebels behind the front. The commanders on the front were unhappy about this decision, but appeals were interrupted by the overthrow of the Committee of Public Safety and its leader, Maximilien de Robespierre (28 July 1794). During the chaos that ensued in the French army the Allies launched an assault on Savonna. Ignoring Carnot's orders, the command of the Army of Italy launched a counter-offensive and secured supply routes to Genoa following victory at the First Battle of Dego. Following this the French consolidated the front and awaited further opportunity.

The main focus of the war then shifted north to the Rhine, until June 29, 1795, when the Austrians launched an attack against the depleted and poorly supplied Army of Italy. Nominally 107,000-strong, the Army of Italy could only manage to field an effective force of about 30,000. Kellermann, who had resumed command, appealed to Carnot for reinforcements. Instead, General Bonaparte was appointed to the general staff where he devised a third plan for an attack towards Vado and Ceva. Kellermann was replaced by General Schérer soon after and he carried out the attacks, gaining victory at Loano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian...281792-1797.29

Now I'm tired to speak with you (edit VP).