A Brit portraying Napoleon as a monster? Impossible.
I mean, I really don’t see a problem portraying a dictator who tried to conquer the entire continent as a monster.
He must be seen in the context of his time. And that particular time was not a world full of niceties. He had a vision that he pursued, and that was his overriding mission at the cost of other human qualities.
“Monster” is a strong word. Many statesmen have this unique focus on one single overriding goal and their place in history. It can be seen that they often put family and other human relations second.
> He wasn’t as bad as Hitler.
What a ringing endorsement. Really something to put on the CV that.
He wasn’t as bad as the most evil leader there has ever been.
For Poland, he was a liberator fighting against three horrid absolute monarchies that partitioned the Commonwealth. The only bad thing about him is that he lost.
Who thinks he is a monster? The monarchs who did not want a dictator opening the highest position to common folk on the basis of merit.
So yeah, he also was a tyrant and dictator but compared to everyone around with the exception of probably the Swiss he did not do anything worse than everybody else.
This is what the British historian interviewed has to say:
> Napoleon had many faults and was a loathsome individual but the racial ideology that underpinned the Nazi regime simply wasn’t there,” he says. “Napoleon is not guilty of genocide. Napoleon doesn’t engage in wholesale purges. In fairness to Napoleon, the number of political prisoners in the course of his reign is relatively limited. **To compare him with Hitler and Stalin is a historical nonsense.”**
The irony also being that Napoléon is considered some kind of hero for Jews in France since he gave them legal recognition and established their civil rights. Before him they were second class citizens.
He was a great liberator, admired by the “the prussian state is the pinnacle of government” Hegel, created the most comprehensive law code of his day, and people choose to defend absolute monarchies over him. His biggest mistake was not knowing when to admit defeat. Had he accepted Metternichs proposal, he could’ve kept the left bank of the Rhine, but he thought he could win. He could not.
Every military leader in history was a monster.
Just another Brit royalty fetishist point o’view
I’m sorry but why would anyone watch an American/British production of Napoleon’s life?
Curse his ideas of common European law, monetary union, European high court and politics based on merit instead of family connections!
When he took over northern Italy, he implemented mandatory free education and took it away from the church (which had the monopoly) and founded the Normale di Pisa, based on the Ecole Normale Superieure. A progressive enlightenment man. After Waterloo Europe went back 50 years, albeit lots of his legacy remained. He inspired the patriots of Europe against the autocratic monarchs but he himself became one … a mixed bag, really but more positive than negative, in my views.
Zelwynski reminds me of Napolean a bit.
Napoleon ruined everything fun
* HRE
* Venice
* papal states
* canada
* war
* taxes
Yes, he reintroduced slavery, for context, after the French Revolution slavery was made illegal in all French colonies but when he came to power, he reintroduced it.
He’s portrayed as a monster in War and Peace. Not a psychotic, serial killer monster, but a narcissistic, destructive monster all the same
Napoleon was a monster: He caused wars that killed hundreds of thousands, all for personal glory, and brought back to french official policy the enslavement and exploitation of colonies.
He was also a much better ruler than the kings who came before and after, better ruler than the republicans, was a freaking genius on the battlefield, reformed for the better governments and public administration everywhere he conquered, actually protected Jews instead of killing them.
Napoleon was a monster as much as Genghis khan, Julius Caesar or Alexander the great.
But Stalin and Hitler? Those two mfs are on their own fucked up level of monster. Those two genocidal maniacs are complete morons who somehow managed to gain control of powerful nations and engaged on the systematic murder of millions of civilians.
So, is it fair to call Napoleon a monster? Yes. Compare him to Hitler and Stalin? Fuck no. Stalin and Hitler are on a league of their own.
Edit: now that I think about it, I guess both Genghis and Julius Caesar were worse than Napoleon. I mean, they did often engage in some systematic killing and enslaving, specially our friend Genghis. But maybe Napoleon would have too had he been born a mongol or a Roman. Anyway, point stands, Napoleon is bad, but not Hitler bad.
Being Polish, seeing how Napoleon is viewed in other European countries is really interesting considering how nearly everything in Poland shows him in good light (he is even mentioned in Polish anthem as an example to follow)
Half a million dead Spaniards and 150 thousand dead Portuguese in the deadliest war in the Peninsula’s history say yes.
Mind you. He’s not Hitler. Not even close. But he ain’t good either.
more like a legend
Before Hitler, there was Napoleon. Everyone that fucking reads history knows this. But reading is hard for a lot of people.
22 comments
A Brit portraying Napoleon as a monster? Impossible.
I mean, I really don’t see a problem portraying a dictator who tried to conquer the entire continent as a monster.
He must be seen in the context of his time. And that particular time was not a world full of niceties. He had a vision that he pursued, and that was his overriding mission at the cost of other human qualities.
“Monster” is a strong word. Many statesmen have this unique focus on one single overriding goal and their place in history. It can be seen that they often put family and other human relations second.
> He wasn’t as bad as Hitler.
What a ringing endorsement. Really something to put on the CV that.
He wasn’t as bad as the most evil leader there has ever been.
For Poland, he was a liberator fighting against three horrid absolute monarchies that partitioned the Commonwealth. The only bad thing about him is that he lost.
Who thinks he is a monster? The monarchs who did not want a dictator opening the highest position to common folk on the basis of merit.
So yeah, he also was a tyrant and dictator but compared to everyone around with the exception of probably the Swiss he did not do anything worse than everybody else.
This is what the British historian interviewed has to say:
> Napoleon had many faults and was a loathsome individual but the racial ideology that underpinned the Nazi regime simply wasn’t there,” he says. “Napoleon is not guilty of genocide. Napoleon doesn’t engage in wholesale purges. In fairness to Napoleon, the number of political prisoners in the course of his reign is relatively limited. **To compare him with Hitler and Stalin is a historical nonsense.”**
The irony also being that Napoléon is considered some kind of hero for Jews in France since he gave them legal recognition and established their civil rights. Before him they were second class citizens.
He was a great liberator, admired by the “the prussian state is the pinnacle of government” Hegel, created the most comprehensive law code of his day, and people choose to defend absolute monarchies over him. His biggest mistake was not knowing when to admit defeat. Had he accepted Metternichs proposal, he could’ve kept the left bank of the Rhine, but he thought he could win. He could not.
Every military leader in history was a monster.
Just another Brit royalty fetishist point o’view
I’m sorry but why would anyone watch an American/British production of Napoleon’s life?
Curse his ideas of common European law, monetary union, European high court and politics based on merit instead of family connections!
When he took over northern Italy, he implemented mandatory free education and took it away from the church (which had the monopoly) and founded the Normale di Pisa, based on the Ecole Normale Superieure. A progressive enlightenment man. After Waterloo Europe went back 50 years, albeit lots of his legacy remained. He inspired the patriots of Europe against the autocratic monarchs but he himself became one … a mixed bag, really but more positive than negative, in my views.
Zelwynski reminds me of Napolean a bit.
Napoleon ruined everything fun
* HRE
* Venice
* papal states
* canada
* war
* taxes
Yes, he reintroduced slavery, for context, after the French Revolution slavery was made illegal in all French colonies but when he came to power, he reintroduced it.
He’s portrayed as a monster in War and Peace. Not a psychotic, serial killer monster, but a narcissistic, destructive monster all the same
Napoleon was a monster: He caused wars that killed hundreds of thousands, all for personal glory, and brought back to french official policy the enslavement and exploitation of colonies.
He was also a much better ruler than the kings who came before and after, better ruler than the republicans, was a freaking genius on the battlefield, reformed for the better governments and public administration everywhere he conquered, actually protected Jews instead of killing them.
Napoleon was a monster as much as Genghis khan, Julius Caesar or Alexander the great.
But Stalin and Hitler? Those two mfs are on their own fucked up level of monster. Those two genocidal maniacs are complete morons who somehow managed to gain control of powerful nations and engaged on the systematic murder of millions of civilians.
So, is it fair to call Napoleon a monster? Yes. Compare him to Hitler and Stalin? Fuck no. Stalin and Hitler are on a league of their own.
Edit: now that I think about it, I guess both Genghis and Julius Caesar were worse than Napoleon. I mean, they did often engage in some systematic killing and enslaving, specially our friend Genghis. But maybe Napoleon would have too had he been born a mongol or a Roman. Anyway, point stands, Napoleon is bad, but not Hitler bad.
Being Polish, seeing how Napoleon is viewed in other European countries is really interesting considering how nearly everything in Poland shows him in good light (he is even mentioned in Polish anthem as an example to follow)
Half a million dead Spaniards and 150 thousand dead Portuguese in the deadliest war in the Peninsula’s history say yes.
Mind you. He’s not Hitler. Not even close. But he ain’t good either.
more like a legend
Before Hitler, there was Napoleon. Everyone that fucking reads history knows this. But reading is hard for a lot of people.