who's like Napoleon

[ALFAJI]

hey all

i want'd to ask you guys
who is the man in history that his Personality is like napoleon bonaparte

[Nikitn]

Ho Chi Minh was the Napoleon of Indochina

[Babur]

Nadir Shah has been compared to Napoleon.

He is sometimes called by historians "the Napoleon of Persia"

[jo the greek]

ALis Pasha of Jannena

Mohament Ali of Egypt were also compared to napoleon

President Santana of Mexico

Saka zulu African Napoleon


"The Black Napoleon" : TOUSSAINT LOUVERTURE liberator Haiti

Also Simon Bolivar i think was compared to Napoleon


Some were compared others wanted to be compared

but the common is that simple men from low birth had ambitious and got very far

[Mr. Scott]

ALis Pasha of Jannena

President Santana of Mexico

Santa Ana? He wasn't a good general at all. He lost in nearly every major battle in the Mexican-American war.

[jo the greek]

Santa Ana? He wasn't a good general at all. He lost in nearly every major battle in the Mexican-American war.

I told you that after Napoelonic wars the characterisation

of Napoleon was given to ambitious people

Santa Anna was a devoted collector of Napoleonic artifacts, and adopted the nickname the "Napoleon of the West" after the Telegraph and Texas Register referred to him as such. His other nickname was "The Eagle."
Santa Anna married Inés García in 1825 and fathered four children—Guadalupe, Maria del Carmen, Manuel, and Antonio. [9] One month after García's death in 1844, the 50-year-old Santa Anna married 15-year-old María Dolores de Tosta. The couple rarely lived together, with Tosta residing primarily in Mexico City, while Santa Anna's political and military activities took him around the country. While they were married until the end of his life, they rarely lived together.[10] They had no children, leading biographer Will Fowler to speculate that the marriage was either primarily platonic or that Tosta was infertile.[10]
Several women claimed to have borne Santa Anna illegitimate children. In his will Santa Anna acknowledged and made provisions for four: Paula, Merced, Petra, and Jose. Biographers have identified three more: Pedro Lopes de Santa Anna, and Angel and Augustina Rosa Lopez de Santa Anna.[9]

Seriously this thread needs to be better phrased

[cpdwane]

Surely Alexander must be compared to Napoleon?

[hellheaven1987]

Surely Alexander must be compared to Napoleon?

Incomparable. Alexander the Great is better than Napolean than every sense.

[cpdwane]

Incomparable. Alexander the Great is better than Napolean than every sense.

What makes him so much better? He only fought three really large battles (plus the Grancius and Chaeronea I suppose), two against an incapable general (Darius) and one against a much tougher general who gave hm much more of a run for his money (Porus.) It's no wonder he was never defeated, and his father's legacy had been an army completely suited to taking on the Persians. Napoleon started from stratch, and had to fight many, many battles against various enemies, so it's no wonder he lost from time to time. The case has been made that both may have been megalomaniacs at some point in their careers, so they are even on that. Tell me, what makes Alexander so much better then napoleon?

[hellheaven1987]

What makes him so much better? He only fought three really large battles (plus the Grancius and Chaeronea I suppose), two against an incapable general (Darius) and one against a much tougher general who gave hm much more of a run for his money (Porus.) It's no wonder he was never defeated, and his father's legacy had been an army completely suited to taking on the Persians. Napoleon started from stratch, and had to fight many, many battles against various enemies, so it's no wonder he lost from time to time. The case has been made that both may have been megalomaniacs at some point in their careers, so they are even on that. Tell me, what makes Alexander so much better then napoleon?

Mr Bonapart abandoned his men to death, TWICE. Does that make things clear??

[cpdwane]

Mr Bonapart abandoned his men to death, TWICE. Does that make things clear??

Both Generals made mistakes in their careers. Napoleon lost his army in Russia, and Alexander should never have marched his men through the Gedrosian desert. He only did that to show that he could, to prove that he could do what no general had done before, not out of any nessecity.

[CiviC]

Mr Bonapart abandoned his men to death, TWICE. Does that make things clear??

This is a very weak and arguable argument ...
Alexander the Great was reckless too wanting to throw his exausted troops in an invasion of India and only the threat of revolt made him to return home. I don't recall a moment when Napoleon's troops revolted against him, his charisma was greater even then Alexander's.
The legend of Alexander the Great as an undefeated conqueror benefited from the fact he died very young at the peak of his career.

Anyway, Napolean is probably one of military scums on my list - and not many generals are classified by me in such term.

OK, so no point then to argue your personal opion about Napoleon. That's what you think and we can't expect an objective opinion from you.
I apreciate Alexander the Great as one of the greatest generals ever together with Caesar and Napoleon (I consider them the three classics), but I prefer Napoleon as his life and career is much more complex then the one of Alexander. Alexander had basically one big campaign with a few great battles during few years. Napoleon had many more campaign and battles, many more enemies, he had to make more complex strategies and face more situations and he was not only a great military leader, but also a great statesman both internally by the reforms he made in France and Europe and externally by his diplomacy.


To answer to the OP, Alexander the Great and Caesar are in the same class as Napoleon.

[Prince of Darkness]

Mr Bonapart abandoned his men to death, TWICE. Does that make things clear??

Alexander, on the other hand, keep marching his men for tens of thousands of miles until they had enough and forced him to abandon his conquests. And his return to Babylon was disastrous, too. Over half of his men died crossing the desert.

[Prince of Darkness]

Incomparable. Alexander the Great is better than Napolean than every sense.

Alexander the Great is over-praised because the ones he conquered were dead by now and nobody complained about him bullying everybody with his military genius.
Napoleon, on the other hand, was defeated by the end and the allies kept telling everybody he is evil. In fact, Alexander and Napoleon are both ambitious men who thrived to greatness, and brought the laws and systems of their nations to other parts of the world.

[hellheaven1987]

Alexander the Great is over-praised because the ones he conquered were dead by now and nobody complained about him bullying everybody with his military genius.

Great, another comment from "Persians were women who cannot fight" fanboys.

Napoleon, on the other hand, was defeated by the end and the allies kept telling everybody he is evil. In fact, Alexander and Napoleon are both ambitious men who thrived to greatness, and brought the laws and systems of their nations to other parts of the world.

Lol, what French laws and systems reached to other Europe by Napolean?? To be honest Louis XIV and Napolean III had more deep influence to European culture than Napolean did.

I am pretty overcritical of him. Well, I wouldn't say overcritical of him, so much as undercritical of Napoleon. But still, no one can deny he was a good General in pitched battles, as well as an inspiring leader of men, both of which Alexander is also renowned for. And at the end of the day this thread is about comparisons rather then which General is better, which is what Hellheaven was argueing.

Well, remember this thread is a comparison of personality, hence I have to point out Napolean abandoned his men twice.

[Lysimachus]

Alexander the Great is over-praised because the ones he conquered were dead by now and nobody complained about him bullying everybody with his military genius.

One could argue that the Achaemenid Empire was decadent perhaps, but not dead. It had plenty of fight left in it, as proven by how they repeatedly came back with huge armies after suffering a constant string of defeats against Alexander.

Napoleon, on the other hand, was defeated by the end and the allies kept telling everybody he is evil. In fact, Alexander and Napoleon are both ambitious men who thrived to greatness, and brought the laws and systems of their nations to other parts of the world.

I would like to think Alexander had a greater influence. During his lifetime, Macedonians resettled in the areas conquered by him and were responsible for transporting Hellenistic culture all across Egypt, the Levant, Persia and even up to Bactria.

Alexander, on the other hand, keep marching his men for tens of thousands of miles until they had enough and forced him to abandon his conquests. And his return to Babylon was disastrous, too. Over half of his men died crossing the desert.

Bearing in mind they had been pushed to the limit, and their mutiny turned out to be disastrous as Alexander was forced to cross the Gedrosian desert.

[CiviC]

Lol, what French laws and systems reached to other Europe by Napolean?? To be honest Louis XIV and Napolean III had more deep influence to European culture than Napolean did.

In Romania, a country that had nothing to do with Napoleon and his wars, we have the Civil code of Napoleon. Just an example.
Many countries had/have their civil codes based on Napoleonic Code.
Also South America has civil codes inspired on Code Napoleon, starting with the Chilean one that influenced other codes throughout South and Central America.

And Napoleon influence don't stops only on Civil codes. It's about abolition of feudalism in all Europe, emancipation of citizens, exporting the ideas of French Revolution of equality and liberty, administravie reforms, etc. Old Europe suffered a complete reshuffle because Napoleon, after him nothing was the same as before 1789 no matter how much Congress of Vienna tried to restaure the old order. Ironically, Napoleon that was a tyrant from a political point of view (in the sense he had abslute monopole on power) became a symbol of romantic revoutionaries against absolutism. Napoleon practically opened wide the Pandora Box for rapid emancipation and modernisation of all kinds in Europe - social, economical, political, national. Some of these movements were not his intent, and many produced even against his will (like the national revival of Germans), still he was the instrument of history that made all these possible.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Alexander the Great is over-praised because the ones he conquered were dead by now and nobody complained about him bullying everybody with his military genius.
Napoleon, on the other hand, was defeated by the end and the allies kept telling everybody he is evil. In fact, Alexander and Napoleon are both ambitious men who thrived to greatness, and brought the laws and systems of their nations to other parts of the world.

The Persian Empire was the strongest and richest state in the ancient world by the time Alexander conquered it..

[KngGilgamesh]

Alexander was the son of King Philip of Macedon, he had all of his father's wealth and troops at his disposal. He was educated by none other than Aristotle.
So he isn't comparable to Napoleon who had to strive for achievement.

[jo the greek]

Alexander was the son of King Philip of Macedon, he had all of his father's wealth and troops at his disposal. He was educated by none other than Aristotle.
So he isn't comparable to Napoleon who had to strive for achievement.

The title is a bit mis-meaning