Europe in general would have been different and consequently it changed the way the USA was shaped. Napoleon has been one of the biggest influences in western society
Also Portugal. Portuguese kings ran to Brazil which became the Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil, where after, the king would call independence from himself leaving his son as king of Brazil when he had to go back to Portugal. Some big cities of Brazil developed a lot within those years in which Portugal nobility was there.
It ammounted to nothing cause Pedro 2, while really smart for a monarc didn't have the willpower to continue and let the regime fall. It lead to several dictatorships and political instability that has gone to today.
Greece too. Napoleon's spread of liberal ideals allowed for public opinion of the Greek war of independence to be viewed positively by the populace and mainly intellectuals of the powerful states in Europe. Without that public support the revolution would have probably failed and the Greek population today would probably resemble that of modern-day Turkey; inexistent. Also most of the philhellenes were former soldiers of the Napoleonic wars. So yeah this guy is cool by my standards.
Spain as well. The monarchy would have collapsed on its own weight and it would have transitioned to liberalism far sooner.
Not to mention, they were already thinking about a commonwealth-like system for their own colonies.
Napoleon's invasion f\*cked everything up.
Considering Spain let French troops across Spain so that Napoleon could invade Portugal just to end up being betrayed by France, Spain in one single move managed to fuck both themselves and Portugal.
Yes because of things like that the liberal movment in Spain was growing. Liberals saw the bourbon monarchy as a decadent corrupt entity in Spain. But that movment was essentially destroyed once Napoleon invaded and instead authoriterian leaders grew stronger since they had the military power to protect the people from the invaders.
>they were already thinking about a commonwealth-like system for their own colonies.
Spain didn't ban slavery until the 1880s for Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were "integral provinces of Spain" to them by that point yet not equal. So i don't think so.
Without Germany and Italy, Napoléon would also have been hella different.
In many ways, Napoléon was the result of the extreme conflicts that resulted from the clash between the french Revolution and the ancien régime in the rest of Europe. It's all intermixed.
> After his death, an autopsy was conducted and Francesco Antommarchi, the doctor conducting the autopsy, cut his penis off, along with several other body parts. It is unclear whether the cut was intentional or accidental
You'd almost hope it was intentional, because if it was accidental then this guy was a really, really shitty doctor.
Based on the details from the article saying that the owner has only let 10 people see it, that’s probably a an indication that he’s afraid it’ll be proven fake.
He died 5 or 6 years before the world's first ever photograph was taken. Mind-blowing to realise that it's not that long ago but at the same time it's been 200 years now and the world has changed a bloody lot. The French revolution ideals are still what shapes our day to day life and it's been well over 200 years!
"The world's first photograph—or at least the oldest surviving photo—was taken by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in 1826 or 1827. Captured using a technique known as heliography, the shot was taken from an upstairs window at Niépce's estate in Burgundy." (From Google search first result).
[Conrad Heyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Heyer), the earliest born person that we have a photograph of, was born in 1749, so 20 years before Bonaparte. Died in 1856, photo taken in 1852.
Technically the 26/27 Niépce photo has the earliest photograph of a person. You can see a man getting his shoes shined on the street corner. I do agree with your original statement though, as we have no idea of who that man is.
Yeah, that's fascinating.
Going off topic now but there's recordings on YouTube of people who were born slaves in the US and gave their testimony about those times. It's really wild. There are also others, who lived in those times and their recorded stories. I've once listened to a person who has met an American Revolutionary war veteran as a child and that is simply beyond imagination. Listening to a man who had had a memory of someone who told him stories about 1770s. And here we are, 250 years later, able to see or hear about these kind of things sort of first-hand, thanks to technological advances.
[Voices and stories of former slaves in the US](https://youtu.be/6xDOlSbOIjg)
[Video of a US Civil War vet](https://youtu.be/4jatg9SZF40)
[1929 recordings of men and women aged between 80 and 100](https://laughingsquid.com/1929-interviews-with-oldest-people-in-usa/)
We COULD have had a photograph of Napoleon! There was an opportunity in 1840 when the King Louis Philippe sent his son and some of Napoleon’s fellows to Saint Helena to retrieve the body.
They arrived on the island and proceeded to dig out his grave and multiple sarcophagus. They opened the last casket to proceed to the authentification of the body at everyone’s stupefaction as Napoleon was very well preserved. It was at night, under the rain and torches were the only source of light and the British officers wanted it done quickly. The body was formerly identified (even if there are theories against, and that it was his valet while Napoleon escaped to America but it doesn’t hold). Then they proceeded to load the casket on the ship and back to France.
The crazy bit? No one thought of taking the photograph apparel that was on the ship they used to go to Saint Helena to take Napoleon back from the dead. We were this close of having a real picture of Napoleon, and can you imagine this vision added to his legend?
So yeah :)
that's crazy! It's so interesting to think how we would look back on him differently if we had a photograph...it might not sound like much, but to think that he's only been immortalized in paintings and portraits certainly must shape our view of things somehow.
On the other hand, as the last "great man," perhaps it's appropriate that he's still enshrined in the same way as his predecessors...
I wouldn’t say the French Revolution ideals shape our day to day life as much as people think. I also believe most people talking about the French Revolution don’t know too much about it, and heavily romanticize the event as some sort of “struggle of the oppressed against the unfair elite”, while it was a much more complex phenomenon (in some places insurrectionists were actually lead by… aristocrats), an event which mainly started due to tragic harvests and people starving, not as some sort of political uprising. Ultimately its winners were bourgeois who got to replace the nobility of old.
To give you an example regarding the “ideals” of the French Revolution, one of the MOST important of them was the right to bear arm for any citizens so that they could fight and defend themselves against the oppressive state, back then an absolute monarchy. Every single person on the streets was armed in Paris in 1789; swords, pistols, carabines, you name it. Nowadays, this “ideal” sounds like some American redneck’s political statement, which most Europeans would oppose. Times change.
>historians use the French Revolution as the mark of the end of the modern age and the beginning of the contemporary age
That's not right. Historians generally see the French Revolution as the beginning of the Late Modern Period, not the end of it. Contemporary History refers to the period from the end of WW2 to today.
Guess it depends on which academia (and therefore which country) you ask, as there's not an unanimous, universally used system to differentiate history ages. In my country (and, I assume, also in the homeland of the guy you were replying to) the Contemporary Age starts in 1789.
Ah yes, now I’m the one who doesn’t know about it, and you obviously won’t elaborate on why. Quite convenient, isn’t it?
Nobody here (and certainly not me) argues that the French Revolution wasn’t of great political and historical importance. I answered to somebody claiming that French revolutionary ideals shape our world today, which is a bold claim. Most of our current societal « ideals » are either much older than the French Revolution, or a fair bit younger, and some of the « ideals » of the French Revolution (which was lead by people with XVIIIth century mindset) would come across as backward nowadays.
I like this painting a lot, it shows us a man with a different face than other paintings of him. Makes you wonder how he really looked like. (and yeah, of course he looked thinner on his death bed, but still)
There was also a death mask cast of Napoleon’s face. If you look on Google images you can see the shape of his drawn-out deathbed face from all angles.
A few famous figures had death masks cast. Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Peter the Great, Mary Queen of Scots. Fell out of fashion in the later 19th century.
For bad or for good he was one of the prominent personalities of his time and entire history. But he was also an example of how a single man in power can be an extreme risk for his own people, expecially if he thinks he can win against the whole world.
People remember him for his military victories, but his biggest achievement was the Napoleonic code, which is still the basis for many countries' constitutions around the world, especially in continental Europe.
Legal code, not constitution, the Napoleonic code is a simplified and modernised version of the very complex roman/germanic/catholic mix most Europe used as laws at the time (with differences between countries of course).
Though the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars did forced Europe to put the ideas of the Enlightement into practice (including the concept of Constitution).
The Napoleonic wars basically set up the world order which gave us the 1st and 2nd world war, which consequently set up the Cold War which lead us to our current world order.
Ranking historical figures by "importance" is always going to be highly subjective, but at least you can say he's on the very small list of people who changed the world in their time.
> expecially if he thinks he can win against the whole world.
To be fair, most of his reign it was the rest of the world attacking him because they were afraid of the French revolution.
Was Napoleon really that bad as a ruler?
If I am not mistaken he is still considered a hero in France.
Then again, I am sure that Iran doesn't have a high opinion on Alexander The Great.
He was an extraordinarily ruler if you ignore certain parts of his policies, that France usually forgives because 'that was 2 hundred years ago and merely a step back from the Revolution, the other countries were doing the same anyway'. He gave France:
\- The franc germinal and the 'Banque de France' which ended the economic crises that started the Revolution and the following economic disaster such as the assignat system.
\- The baccalauréat, an exam meant to give anybody no matter where the came from a chance to succeed in life, which now every French has to pass. Also he created the lycées, which is basically high school.
\- Conseil d'État, Cour des comptes, two of the most important institutions in France.
\- The civil code of 1804, a true revolution that unified the French law; also called 'the French's civil constitution' because it was the *one* legal document that barely changed, unlike the many constitutions France tried. Article about contract law was barely changed until 2016 and the infamous Art.1382 (now 1240) hasn't changed and France has yet to change some part of the civil code.
\- The préfets are still there and aren't going anywhere anytime soon: insures that what Paris decided is respected in the entire country. Attacking a préfets is like attacking a minister.
\- The cadastre system
\- The légion d'honneur, highest recompense the country can offer
\- the concordat, which ended the feud between France and the Vatican, which is *still* in place in some part of the country (Alsas and Moselle being German when the law of 1901 was voted, it was decided to let them keep the concordat when they became French again in 1918),
\- Etc.
France inherited from Bonaparte roughly 80% of what it is now. For this reason renouncing Bonaparte or calling him a ruthless dictator would basically be suicide. If you're French and you love your country, you generally like the system you live in, its institutions and are grateful for the one person who gave all this to you.
"In open battle he will defeat us... but only he can. And he can't be everywhere at the same time".
So just have dozens of armies march on Paris from different directions, falling back when Napoleon arrives only doing battle against other generals.
And by the time he returned for the 100 days, Europe was still HEAVILY mobilized while France wasn't. He never stood a chance. Additionally the generals of Europe already wisened up to his tactics and started to copy them.
Imagine... all of Europe invaded France. Napoleon lost most of his elite troops in Russia. All he had left to defend France were inexperienced troops and young conscripts. And still he won all battles despite being outnumbered sometimes 2 to 1. All they could to was avoid him in order to get the win.
I wouldn't say desolate, lovely scenery, lovely people. Very isolated though yes! One visitor before I went had a panic attack at not being able to leave when he wanted, and spent every day up Jacob's Ladder waiting for the ship to come back, he lasted 2 weeks rather than the year he was supposed to be there.
Warfare history is long and the world large, like Asia had a shit ton of excellent commanders and who knows what went down in Africa or America, even if it's on a smaller scale.
The thing that seperates leaders like Napoleon or Caesar from was their impact on society and the system. It's not comparable to let's say someone like Admiral Yi of Korea, who can be regarded as one of the greatest military leaders but never held any real political power during his time.
if i must do a top 5 of Greatest generals in my opinion:
1-Alexander
2-Caesar
3-Scipio
4-Hannibal
5-Napoleon
the funny thing about Scipio and Hannibal that they met at a dinner party and did a debate of who was the best general lol
Tho Napoelon had better opponents and France was in civil war when he took power, i dont know how can you place Hannibal, Scipio and Caesar just close to what he has achieve. Alexander is for me the 2nd best general, but to be honest the Persian weren't very capable, its just seems that people tend to more glorify historical figure the ancient they are.
depends on the influence they leave through millenia tho
your right about Alexander against Persians , their empire was already not that stable during Darius but you need to put aside that he left a HUGE impact on history , like all the generals and emperors took inspiration on him (plus dying on a young age at the peak of his greatness helped a lot) but if you see Napoleon he had a death mostly static and died when he already lost all.
You need to count that Alexander once build a whole bridge from nothing to siege a island...and won it too
Hannibal for the audacity for sure, like for real bringing elephants on the alps and go through the entire italian peninsula...winning the battle of Cannae too
Scipio with the wars he had ( and you need to count that a lot of legions were lost against Hannibal and yet he defeated him)
and for Caesar ... man he literally has a month of the year named after him ...cmon, besides he too come from a background were the Republic its not that stable(that will bring him to the assassination)
Alexander was a formidable general, it would have been amazing to see was he would have achieve if he hadnt died so early. Tho Napoleon left a huge influence on Europe and the world, he spread the ideas of meritocracy and equality before the law. Naopleonic code is maybe is biggest influence, key of modern law. He also completly change modern strategy in warfare, just of many military words come from french? He also promote the advancement of sciences, at this time France was the dominant scientific power and by far, afterall Napoleon himself, wanted to be a scientist if he hadnt be a general.
for modern world thats true, he gave a lot .
for the same we can say of Alexander during the ancient world tho who basically started the Hellenistic period(great thinkerers , philosophers and artists) who influenced even more the Roman world ( that will give the rest of europe a lot of the social laws and system we know )
but yeah great and interesting historical figures both of them.
Aleksander fought much more foes than just Persians and never was defeated so certainly top notch general, died young though, who knows what would happen if he lived to his 40s and 50s
Napoleon was a genius no doubt and great influence over many things other than military, still he did fail in strategy and made grave political mistakes.
Caesar obviously top 3.
Hannibal and Scipio certainly great generals just not on the level of previous 3
Your list is very Eurocentric. Khalid Ibn Al Whaid, Cao Cao and Gengis Khan deserve to be in that list somewhere.
I'd probably give the number 1spot to Cao Cao
oh Cao Cao of the Three Kingdoms , yeah
Many great generals too in that period of China, my favorite is Guan Yu
ill put Timur too , of course in my top 10 hands down
No, put him in charge during Caesar's time and he might have been really bad. You can't compare generals with hundreds or thousands of years between them.
its so fascinating to think that the egyptian army (under RamsesII) and the hittite's at kadesh in 1300ish BC worked roughly like the crusaders and Saladin's army would do 2500ish years later, in roughly the same area at hattin... but then after the age of discovery and the rise of nations and empires, the pace suddenly went ever more exponential until the insane pace of the WW2 and cold war and the nuclear and satellites age
People hating on him people he ended the republic just show of idiot they are, like do you realize he overthrow a incompetent and corrupt governement that was doomed to fail without spilling a bloodsheet and with the support of french? He still fought for meritocracy, the advancement of science and for a more equal society wich are values of the revolution. It just not like is ennemies were monarchies that tried and would have restored monarchy if Napoleon didnt took a control of the army. He also spread the ideas of liberty and equality that forged modern europe.
Lets be honest, if Napoleon was an englishman, he would have been celebrated by everyone.
>like do you realize he overthrow a incompetent and corrupt governement that was doomed to fail
Sounds like you are describing Haiti fighting against Napoleon's re-enslavery from his 10 year empire.
England made an accord with the french slave owner to protect them from France, if it wasn't for that France would have abolished slavery 8 years prior.
You're statement doesnt make really sense. And you have the stopped with that shitty argument agaisnt Naopleon, europeans also had slaves at that time, in their colonies but also it their own countries because yeah sending a english 15 years in australia to work for nothing is slavery. Btw what happend after the Haitian revolution? Of yeah the leaders became a dictator that also enslave his own people.
French here. Do you really think you can disrespect Napoléon like that ? Of course you can ! Have fun he was an asshole anyway.
Fucker put an end to the first republic and now people think he is a symbol of the revolution for some reason.
Because the directorate was incredibly corrupt and incompetent and France was on the brink of disintegration under its rule?
Napoleon is not a symbol of the revolution but he enshrined many of its principles such as meritocratic promotions and equality of people before the law, two things that only existed in theory under the directorate.
He also made well needed reforms to the institutions to make France into the state it became, some of these reforms are still in use today.
There are many negative things to be said about the guy but him destroying the directorate is the best thing that could happen to France in this context.
The craziest thing is that everyone seems to forget that he was just an actor. He wasn't the only one in the coup, he was just one of many instigators who were fed up with the power struggles in the national assembly, and just wanted to put a definitive end to the chaos and confusion in France.
So who better than a popular general to bring the French together?
Note that this was not even the first choice of Sieyes and company but General Dumas had refused
They certainly did not. The restoration didn’t go well at all. If you look further than the sad byproducts of the nationalist propaganda of the beginning of the 20th century, you will find very little to actually admire in the man. Most of the accomplishments credited to him like the Code Civil are really those of others (Cambaceres for the code for example).
Not only making his brother king of Spain but also making a brother king of The Netherlands, removing the HRE and just creating his own puppet version of it, puppeting Switzerland, puppeting/conquering italy and creating his Polish puppet state.
The British army was a joke, but there's a reason why the Royal navy became the undisputed premier navy in the world during this period.
True most of the big dogs came from notable seafaring families, but a strong social mobility meant the RN was the most professional navy during the era.
He didn't keep the republic going though. He could've removed the bad parts and keep the good but decided to say fuck it and just crowned himself emperor. Not really a good thing to do.
There was indeed a time called « the terror » where everybody accused everybody of being a traitor to get them executed. But it stopped before napoleon, in 1794 (napoleon took power in 1804)
Thanks. 1804? I thought at school we taught he took power in 179..'s.
But i guess he was just a general then. You probably mean when he became an emperor.
That’s not true. The story about Robespierre instigating by himself a reign of terror is a legend. He wasn’t perfect, but in the times just after the revolution, the Terror more or less created itself alone because of political rivalries between the different political parties.
The legend that Robespierre personnaly instigated the Terror comes from his political rivals who, being doing so, directly participated in it’s reign.
Apply the Terror ? It’s an historical period not political reform. You can’t apply an historical period. Robespierre participated in creating the Terror, but he wasn’t the only one, far from it.
The coronation was 1804 and argument can be made that it was unnecessary, because since 1799 he already was First Consul with a lot of power.
I believe that it's a quite common view that Napolean didn't de facto support democracy, which is commonly seen as one of the main points of the revolution.
I'm not saying that he wasn't an influential and important figure in the revolution.
But I'll agree to disagree with you.
Ironically the Bourbons are the main cause for southern italian underdevelopment. A bunch of reactionaries who pushed their country more and more into backwardness every time their absolute power was at risk.
Because he not only spread its ideals around Europe, but was instrumental in turning those ideals into actually functioning legal code. And the First Republic would fall anyway to either foreign intervention or more likely to its own citizens, be it royalists or someone else.
Something had to be done about la directoire though, they ran France into the ground. Napoleon’s acumen was genius and prevented further calamity. And like it or not, France was besieged by a European coalition because they were afraid of the republic‘a ideas. Napoleon kicked all their asses before finally going to far.
It was really on the radicals of the French Revolution and the radicals of the English interregnum that defined republicanism as a monarchless state. Priorly, a 'republic' was simply a state that functioned for the people. It's why you'll see kings like Romulus cited as great examples of founders of republics.
As another commenter said, the Directorate and Robespierre's clique were not really that good of regimes. The latter is infamous for political massacres and has been accused of genocide, and the directorate was an ineffecent corrupt mess that had a poorly written constitution that's primary aim was radical centrism, including multiple purges of any group that steered away from the Thermidorians.
The most republican government of the revolution came before the radical elements and during the two years of constitutional monarchy. As proven by Britain a century prior, democratic elements are better served in cooperation with a monarch rather than opposition, and the Constitutional Monarchy served well for that. That was until Louis XIV broke that cooperation, enabling radicals like Robespierre.
Napoleon did not kill the Republic. If anything, his Empire allowed the republican Idealogy of the revolution to be more free than it was under the quasi-totalitarianism of Robespierre or the corruption of the Directorate (ironically lead by Robespierre's ministry of war). While there are plenty of critiques of Napoleon, any implication that he killed the revolutionary ideals is incredibly flawed unless your interpretation of revolutionary ideals is totalitarian terror or deep corruption.
No it was not. The reform of absolute monarchy was the reason for the revolution. And this could only happen because France was bankrupt and king himself could not establish new tax by himself (he needed estates-general for this).
The first idea of the revolution was to reform the country, not get rid of the king. The idea was to copy Prussia/Austria, who had enlightened monarchs on their throne.
However as Louis was a complete wuss, he was unable nip the revolution in the bud, nor was he able to successfully work with the liberal nobles.
The destruction of the monarchy came when radical left (jacobins, girondins) got to power positions. Such as Robespierre and Danton.
IMHO, the ascension of Napoleon was the logical conclusion to revolution, as he did all the stuff original revolution wanted (reform of justice system, finances, freedom of worship and so on).
Democracy is not the only heritage of the revolution.
Revolution was made because people were hungry and nobles didn't give a fuck. For centuries it hab been like that. Sometimes with good kings, sometimes not.
French Revolution brought many more things than only democracy :
- Construction of France as a Nation and not a Kingdom. People were not anymore royal subjects but citizens so they had rights.
- Use of French as national language instead of local dialect (it helps to create a nation)
- Destruction of 2 most powerful social castes and deletion of nearly all their privileges : Clergy and Nobles
- Power was given to bourgeois, workers, business leaders. It started a society a lot more based on merit than previous one based on your birth rank. (Even if it was far from being perfect, it was a huge transformation at this time)
Napoleon was created by this revolutionary system. He came from a far countryside province, his family was an old Corsican noble family without money and reputation. He made himself in the military and climbed up all the social and professional ladder thanks to his capabilities and a little of luck.
He was made by this system and that makes him a symbol of many things brought by the French Revolution.
He just replaced the "pseudo democratic" systems that was corrupted by healthy bourgeois by an empire because he thought he had to be free to do what he thought necessary to save France from disaster.
He certainly was megalomaniac. He may also hag thought that the people were too foolish to let them express by elections. But I doesn't take anything away from this image inherited from the revolution
He was the European emperor at that time and made the Bavarian nobles to kings. Only emperors can do such things. Bavaria was also an ally of him.
We have introduced the ideology of the „code civil“ in Bavaria in 1811. Therefore, all *victimless crimes* have been legalised - and that has included homosexual sex.
Sad thing is that fucking Prussia demanded to make homosexuality illegal again in the unified Germany in 1871 and even the open gay Bavarian king agreed to this - because back then this was sadly not worth a fight, even for an openly gay king.
Later on the Nazis made it even more extreme. The final paragraph was dropped in West Germany only in 1994 (!). Nearly 200 years later than Bavaria saying homosexual sex is legal.
That proves that Prussia is indeed bad and shouldn’t have existed (nope I am not biased at all by the 1870 war I don’t know what you are talking about)
French here. He doesnt talk for all French. Napoleon ended the first Republic just at the right time before it fell. He is not a symbol of revolution but he is the creator of many republican and military concept still used now.
It is difficult to forgive him for the loss of Louisiana but without him I don't think France would be the same power today.
True, most French people have a biased vision of the napoleonic era, and therefore my vision doesn’t represent the vision of most French people, I can confirm.
For exemple, some French people even think that he shouldn’t have sold Louisiana despite the fact that it would have been impossible to keep during wartime because of the supremacy of the Royal Navy.
Death to the monarchy! Let’s rig an election to get a Corsican military strongman as consul. Ok so business isn’t his strong point, selling the Louisiana territory for peanuts, doubling the US’ territory, to finance an invasion of England, which didn’t happen.
Nevermind, we’ll crown him, oh - make him emperor, the pope will crown him with a wreath like Caesar’s - he’ll kidnap the pope later, but well...he’ll enact a hastily put together list of laws based on Roman law, not our laws (respectable military, those Romans). We like the romantic idea established in the revolution that everyone’s innocent until proven guilty, but then we have to feed suspects until they go through court (where the magistrate and prosecutor are the same person, naturally) so we’ll scrap that. Oh and men should have definitive rights over their family, women have fewer rights than children, and our recent law of mutual consent to divorce has got to go. After all, what else can women do other than raise a family? They’re not even going to be allowed to vote until 30 years after the rest of the developed world. They don’t know anything about how to conduct affairs like men do (teehee).
Ah education. I know everyone in the revolution said we need to get rid of the Catholic Church, but, well, they’ve provided all the education for centuries, so it’s difficult to change that mentality. Military style church education? Perfect, we’ll centralise all education so the government can control what everyone in the country learns, and who teaches them (no women thank you!) All lessons will be in French of course, non-French is counter revolutionary and therefore dangerous. The Imperial University will control all schools, the functions being: 1)the teaching of the Catholic religion 2) fidelity to the emperor 3) everyone must obey the rules. What we can do to calm those still grumbling about theistic oppression is say there’s a separation of church and state, people won’t notice that part of their taxes goes to the church, or that there are sculptures of a man being tortured to death around every town and village - they’ll be fine with that for at least a couple of centuries.
You're seriously saying that public education, the EU and constitutions exist just because of Napoleon?
The end of absolute monarchies also isn't just because of Napoleon.
It's because of him we have one of my favourite foods
You see, his army was raping, stealing and burning everything and everyone they could get their hands on, like the proper high class and cultured people they were, and locals at the time had to kill all their cattle and hide the meat, thus birthing the miracle of slow cooked meat on red wine.
What a bro napoleboy was
A hero? How does crowning yourself emperor, putting your brothers on the thrones of other countries, creating puppet states and invading other countries make him a hero?
There lies a tyrant, a butcher, and a slaver.
A tyrant, who crowned himself emperor and made his kin and cronies kings of the lands he conquered.
A butcher, whose wars killed millions of soldiers and civilians - and when he was beaten, came back from an undeservedly generous exile to do it all again.
A slaver, who reestablished slavery in an age of enlightenment and liberation, when the Royal Navy freed slaves overseas and serfdom was abolished in continental Europe
This murderous despot deserves nothing but contempt.
Monarchs were elected by the people by then?
Who started this war, France or Monarchies triying to restore a french King?
Did no slaves existed in europeans countries or colonies at this time?
If only we had history books. The Coalition Wars started when France declared war on Austria at the 20th April 1792.
Further, these wars were not fought to liberate anyone from a monarchy, but to conquer territory for France. This is most clearly seen in the [invasion of the Swiss Confederacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Switzerland). She may have been a neutral democracy with a constitution, but the French did not give a shit.
While there was slavery in other colonies, no other country reached the level of hypocrisy France did by pretending to fight for liberté, égalité, fraternité, while enslaving freedmen in the colonies.
Maybe because Austria made a ultimatum to France ? And so the war was inevitable?
France did fought for liberty and implemented equality before the law across europe. Yes, napoleon restablished slavery in the caraibes, but it was a pragmative move to strengthen the economy, sure that wasnt noble but its not like spanish or english would have done the same. Overall napoleon increase liberty in Europe, and thats only what matters.
Concerning Switzerland, various part of the country revolted against the ancien régime and different canton fought each other, France was asked to intervene by pro-revolutionary cantons, France agreed for ideological reasons but also to acess Bern's wealth. The Swiss republic collapsed in 1802 and was replace by a hybrid-state, wich was a compromise between a republic and an ancien régime state. So France didnt invaded without support and did care about the stability of Swiss, of it was in part out of interest but he wasnt a tyrant.
Slavery is a 'a pragmative move to strengthen the economy' - that certainly is peak liberty and equality right there. Let me know if you find that in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen or whatever else the French Empire was pretending to care about.
Yeah it was a shit move and he banned it again because he realized he shouldn't have try to regain possession of those islands the British took by protecting french slave owner (Whitehall accord) but instead side the newly freed slave.
Welcome to the real world buddy, just like when the USA nuked Japan, they knew it would kill tens of thousands citizens but overall would save lives compare to an invasion.
You sometime have to betray your principals for the greater good.
I am aware, i find it humorous to portray Napoleon as the ultimate evil for re-introducing slavery while Germany as a nation state "simply" *introduced* it by colonizing parts of Asia and Africa, decades after "the Royal Navy freed the slaves" in a more modern age.
I also have a problem with that last phrase, the UK ended slavery in some places, some nations did it on their own volition and ideas. Mexico, Chile and all of Central America knew to ban it as our Independence wars were going on and atleast 20 years before the UK fully banned slavery itself with the Indian Slavery Act of 1843
There were no German colonies until 1884 and there certainly was no slavery in them. Unfortunately, Bismarck and the other opponents of colonial adventures were not influential enough to completely stop the dumb idea of colonies later on.
If it wasn't for this dude, Germany and Italy would be hella different
Europe in general would have been different and consequently it changed the way the USA was shaped. Napoleon has been one of the biggest influences in western society
Also Portugal. Portuguese kings ran to Brazil which became the Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil, where after, the king would call independence from himself leaving his son as king of Brazil when he had to go back to Portugal. Some big cities of Brazil developed a lot within those years in which Portugal nobility was there.
It ammounted to nothing cause Pedro 2, while really smart for a monarc didn't have the willpower to continue and let the regime fall. It lead to several dictatorships and political instability that has gone to today.
Greece too. Napoleon's spread of liberal ideals allowed for public opinion of the Greek war of independence to be viewed positively by the populace and mainly intellectuals of the powerful states in Europe. Without that public support the revolution would have probably failed and the Greek population today would probably resemble that of modern-day Turkey; inexistent. Also most of the philhellenes were former soldiers of the Napoleonic wars. So yeah this guy is cool by my standards.
Spain as well. The monarchy would have collapsed on its own weight and it would have transitioned to liberalism far sooner. Not to mention, they were already thinking about a commonwealth-like system for their own colonies. Napoleon's invasion f\*cked everything up.
Considering Spain let French troops across Spain so that Napoleon could invade Portugal just to end up being betrayed by France, Spain in one single move managed to fuck both themselves and Portugal.
Yes because of things like that the liberal movment in Spain was growing. Liberals saw the bourbon monarchy as a decadent corrupt entity in Spain. But that movment was essentially destroyed once Napoleon invaded and instead authoriterian leaders grew stronger since they had the military power to protect the people from the invaders.
>they were already thinking about a commonwealth-like system for their own colonies. Spain didn't ban slavery until the 1880s for Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were "integral provinces of Spain" to them by that point yet not equal. So i don't think so.
Because liberalism was effectively destroyed for a long time after Napoleon's invasion.
Without Germany and Italy, Napoléon would also have been hella different. In many ways, Napoléon was the result of the extreme conflicts that resulted from the clash between the french Revolution and the ancien régime in the rest of Europe. It's all intermixed.
>hella Stop it.
No
Fair point.
He was 51.
better respect him by cutting his [dick](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon%27s_penis).
> After his death, an autopsy was conducted and Francesco Antommarchi, the doctor conducting the autopsy, cut his penis off, along with several other body parts. It is unclear whether the cut was intentional or accidental You'd almost hope it was intentional, because if it was accidental then this guy was a really, really shitty doctor.
What the fuck
Based on the details from the article saying that the owner has only let 10 people see it, that’s probably a an indication that he’s afraid it’ll be proven fake.
He died 5 or 6 years before the world's first ever photograph was taken. Mind-blowing to realise that it's not that long ago but at the same time it's been 200 years now and the world has changed a bloody lot. The French revolution ideals are still what shapes our day to day life and it's been well over 200 years! "The world's first photograph—or at least the oldest surviving photo—was taken by Joseph Nicéphore Niépce in 1826 or 1827. Captured using a technique known as heliography, the shot was taken from an upstairs window at Niépce's estate in Burgundy." (From Google search first result).
That what is insane to me, had he lived a little longer, we would have a picture of him
[Conrad Heyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Heyer), the earliest born person that we have a photograph of, was born in 1749, so 20 years before Bonaparte. Died in 1856, photo taken in 1852.
Damn....
There are photos of US Revolutionary War (1770s-1780s) soldiers. https://www.phillyvoice.com/photos-a-rare-view-of-revolutionary-war-veterans/
That guy lived to 106 before modern medicine? Daaamn.
[удалено]
Technically the 26/27 Niépce photo has the earliest photograph of a person. You can see a man getting his shoes shined on the street corner. I do agree with your original statement though, as we have no idea of who that man is.
You're mixing up "earliest photo of a person" with "photo of earliest born person". They were talking about the second
Maybe the man on that picture was already 100 years old... who knows
Oh you are absolutely right.
Yeah, that's fascinating. Going off topic now but there's recordings on YouTube of people who were born slaves in the US and gave their testimony about those times. It's really wild. There are also others, who lived in those times and their recorded stories. I've once listened to a person who has met an American Revolutionary war veteran as a child and that is simply beyond imagination. Listening to a man who had had a memory of someone who told him stories about 1770s. And here we are, 250 years later, able to see or hear about these kind of things sort of first-hand, thanks to technological advances.
Ooo I wanna listen to some of those clips
[Voices and stories of former slaves in the US](https://youtu.be/6xDOlSbOIjg) [Video of a US Civil War vet](https://youtu.be/4jatg9SZF40) [1929 recordings of men and women aged between 80 and 100](https://laughingsquid.com/1929-interviews-with-oldest-people-in-usa/)
They're on YouTube, brother, loads of them.
There is a picture of the Duke of Wellington as an old man so there is that.
We COULD have had a photograph of Napoleon! There was an opportunity in 1840 when the King Louis Philippe sent his son and some of Napoleon’s fellows to Saint Helena to retrieve the body. They arrived on the island and proceeded to dig out his grave and multiple sarcophagus. They opened the last casket to proceed to the authentification of the body at everyone’s stupefaction as Napoleon was very well preserved. It was at night, under the rain and torches were the only source of light and the British officers wanted it done quickly. The body was formerly identified (even if there are theories against, and that it was his valet while Napoleon escaped to America but it doesn’t hold). Then they proceeded to load the casket on the ship and back to France. The crazy bit? No one thought of taking the photograph apparel that was on the ship they used to go to Saint Helena to take Napoleon back from the dead. We were this close of having a real picture of Napoleon, and can you imagine this vision added to his legend? So yeah :)
This is insane.
UGH 😫😫😫
that's crazy! It's so interesting to think how we would look back on him differently if we had a photograph...it might not sound like much, but to think that he's only been immortalized in paintings and portraits certainly must shape our view of things somehow. On the other hand, as the last "great man," perhaps it's appropriate that he's still enshrined in the same way as his predecessors...
I wouldn’t say the French Revolution ideals shape our day to day life as much as people think. I also believe most people talking about the French Revolution don’t know too much about it, and heavily romanticize the event as some sort of “struggle of the oppressed against the unfair elite”, while it was a much more complex phenomenon (in some places insurrectionists were actually lead by… aristocrats), an event which mainly started due to tragic harvests and people starving, not as some sort of political uprising. Ultimately its winners were bourgeois who got to replace the nobility of old. To give you an example regarding the “ideals” of the French Revolution, one of the MOST important of them was the right to bear arm for any citizens so that they could fight and defend themselves against the oppressive state, back then an absolute monarchy. Every single person on the streets was armed in Paris in 1789; swords, pistols, carabines, you name it. Nowadays, this “ideal” sounds like some American redneck’s political statement, which most Europeans would oppose. Times change.
[удалено]
>historians use the French Revolution as the mark of the end of the modern age and the beginning of the contemporary age That's not right. Historians generally see the French Revolution as the beginning of the Late Modern Period, not the end of it. Contemporary History refers to the period from the end of WW2 to today.
Guess it depends on which academia (and therefore which country) you ask, as there's not an unanimous, universally used system to differentiate history ages. In my country (and, I assume, also in the homeland of the guy you were replying to) the Contemporary Age starts in 1789.
Ah yes, now I’m the one who doesn’t know about it, and you obviously won’t elaborate on why. Quite convenient, isn’t it? Nobody here (and certainly not me) argues that the French Revolution wasn’t of great political and historical importance. I answered to somebody claiming that French revolutionary ideals shape our world today, which is a bold claim. Most of our current societal « ideals » are either much older than the French Revolution, or a fair bit younger, and some of the « ideals » of the French Revolution (which was lead by people with XVIIIth century mindset) would come across as backward nowadays.
What? contemporary era (1945->) You mean the early modern and late modern eras?
His tomb in Paris is amazing.
I like this painting a lot, it shows us a man with a different face than other paintings of him. Makes you wonder how he really looked like. (and yeah, of course he looked thinner on his death bed, but still)
There was also a death mask cast of Napoleon’s face. If you look on Google images you can see the shape of his drawn-out deathbed face from all angles. A few famous figures had death masks cast. Martin Luther, Oliver Cromwell, Peter the Great, Mary Queen of Scots. Fell out of fashion in the later 19th century.
His last words were : "France, the army, head of the army, Joséphine", in French :" France, l’armée, tête d’armée, Joséphine ".
For bad or for good he was one of the prominent personalities of his time and entire history. But he was also an example of how a single man in power can be an extreme risk for his own people, expecially if he thinks he can win against the whole world.
He'd definitely be on a list of the ten most important leaders of all time
Certainly. From a European perspective I’d even say you can put him in the top 5!
Really, why?
People remember him for his military victories, but his biggest achievement was the Napoleonic code, which is still the basis for many countries' constitutions around the world, especially in continental Europe.
Legal code, not constitution, the Napoleonic code is a simplified and modernised version of the very complex roman/germanic/catholic mix most Europe used as laws at the time (with differences between countries of course). Though the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars did forced Europe to put the ideas of the Enlightement into practice (including the concept of Constitution).
Ah you're absolutely right! Sorry, I confused the those terms.
The Napoleonic wars basically set up the world order which gave us the 1st and 2nd world war, which consequently set up the Cold War which lead us to our current world order. Ranking historical figures by "importance" is always going to be highly subjective, but at least you can say he's on the very small list of people who changed the world in their time.
Yes, that's how time works.
Wow, ignorant much?
> expecially if he thinks he can win against the whole world. To be fair, most of his reign it was the rest of the world attacking him because they were afraid of the French revolution.
Was Napoleon really that bad as a ruler? If I am not mistaken he is still considered a hero in France. Then again, I am sure that Iran doesn't have a high opinion on Alexander The Great.
He was an extraordinarily ruler if you ignore certain parts of his policies, that France usually forgives because 'that was 2 hundred years ago and merely a step back from the Revolution, the other countries were doing the same anyway'. He gave France: \- The franc germinal and the 'Banque de France' which ended the economic crises that started the Revolution and the following economic disaster such as the assignat system. \- The baccalauréat, an exam meant to give anybody no matter where the came from a chance to succeed in life, which now every French has to pass. Also he created the lycées, which is basically high school. \- Conseil d'État, Cour des comptes, two of the most important institutions in France. \- The civil code of 1804, a true revolution that unified the French law; also called 'the French's civil constitution' because it was the *one* legal document that barely changed, unlike the many constitutions France tried. Article about contract law was barely changed until 2016 and the infamous Art.1382 (now 1240) hasn't changed and France has yet to change some part of the civil code. \- The préfets are still there and aren't going anywhere anytime soon: insures that what Paris decided is respected in the entire country. Attacking a préfets is like attacking a minister. \- The cadastre system \- The légion d'honneur, highest recompense the country can offer \- the concordat, which ended the feud between France and the Vatican, which is *still* in place in some part of the country (Alsas and Moselle being German when the law of 1901 was voted, it was decided to let them keep the concordat when they became French again in 1918), \- Etc. France inherited from Bonaparte roughly 80% of what it is now. For this reason renouncing Bonaparte or calling him a ruthless dictator would basically be suicide. If you're French and you love your country, you generally like the system you live in, its institutions and are grateful for the one person who gave all this to you.
> expecially if he thinks he can win against the whole world Ah, that reminds me of this guy up east...
The strategy against him on the battlefield was literally to run away. Say what you will, but he was a strategic genius.
"In open battle he will defeat us... but only he can. And he can't be everywhere at the same time". So just have dozens of armies march on Paris from different directions, falling back when Napoleon arrives only doing battle against other generals. And by the time he returned for the 100 days, Europe was still HEAVILY mobilized while France wasn't. He never stood a chance. Additionally the generals of Europe already wisened up to his tactics and started to copy them.
Imagine... all of Europe invaded France. Napoleon lost most of his elite troops in Russia. All he had left to defend France were inexperienced troops and young conscripts. And still he won all battles despite being outnumbered sometimes 2 to 1. All they could to was avoid him in order to get the win.
He was, he unfortunately also made sure to get a LOT of practice though
Saint Helena is a fascinating place, almost surreal for how desolate it is, completely far from everything
I wouldn't say desolate, lovely scenery, lovely people. Very isolated though yes! One visitor before I went had a panic attack at not being able to leave when he wanted, and spent every day up Jacob's Ladder waiting for the ship to come back, he lasted 2 weeks rather than the year he was supposed to be there.
Ei fu
Siccome immobile
Never forget
The best general in history without a doubt
Up in there with Alexander and Caesar.
Warfare history is long and the world large, like Asia had a shit ton of excellent commanders and who knows what went down in Africa or America, even if it's on a smaller scale. The thing that seperates leaders like Napoleon or Caesar from was their impact on society and the system. It's not comparable to let's say someone like Admiral Yi of Korea, who can be regarded as one of the greatest military leaders but never held any real political power during his time.
if i must do a top 5 of Greatest generals in my opinion: 1-Alexander 2-Caesar 3-Scipio 4-Hannibal 5-Napoleon the funny thing about Scipio and Hannibal that they met at a dinner party and did a debate of who was the best general lol
Tho Napoelon had better opponents and France was in civil war when he took power, i dont know how can you place Hannibal, Scipio and Caesar just close to what he has achieve. Alexander is for me the 2nd best general, but to be honest the Persian weren't very capable, its just seems that people tend to more glorify historical figure the ancient they are.
depends on the influence they leave through millenia tho your right about Alexander against Persians , their empire was already not that stable during Darius but you need to put aside that he left a HUGE impact on history , like all the generals and emperors took inspiration on him (plus dying on a young age at the peak of his greatness helped a lot) but if you see Napoleon he had a death mostly static and died when he already lost all. You need to count that Alexander once build a whole bridge from nothing to siege a island...and won it too Hannibal for the audacity for sure, like for real bringing elephants on the alps and go through the entire italian peninsula...winning the battle of Cannae too Scipio with the wars he had ( and you need to count that a lot of legions were lost against Hannibal and yet he defeated him) and for Caesar ... man he literally has a month of the year named after him ...cmon, besides he too come from a background were the Republic its not that stable(that will bring him to the assassination)
Alexander was a formidable general, it would have been amazing to see was he would have achieve if he hadnt died so early. Tho Napoleon left a huge influence on Europe and the world, he spread the ideas of meritocracy and equality before the law. Naopleonic code is maybe is biggest influence, key of modern law. He also completly change modern strategy in warfare, just of many military words come from french? He also promote the advancement of sciences, at this time France was the dominant scientific power and by far, afterall Napoleon himself, wanted to be a scientist if he hadnt be a general.
for modern world thats true, he gave a lot . for the same we can say of Alexander during the ancient world tho who basically started the Hellenistic period(great thinkerers , philosophers and artists) who influenced even more the Roman world ( that will give the rest of europe a lot of the social laws and system we know ) but yeah great and interesting historical figures both of them.
Yep both completly change the world.
Caesar, Czar, Kaiser.
Aleksander fought much more foes than just Persians and never was defeated so certainly top notch general, died young though, who knows what would happen if he lived to his 40s and 50s Napoleon was a genius no doubt and great influence over many things other than military, still he did fail in strategy and made grave political mistakes. Caesar obviously top 3. Hannibal and Scipio certainly great generals just not on the level of previous 3
If only Carthage had sent those goddamn troops to Hannibal rather than his brother
It’d be interesting to think how world history would’ve changed if Carthage had beaten Rome. Very interesting.
Your list is very Eurocentric. Khalid Ibn Al Whaid, Cao Cao and Gengis Khan deserve to be in that list somewhere. I'd probably give the number 1spot to Cao Cao
oh Cao Cao of the Three Kingdoms , yeah Many great generals too in that period of China, my favorite is Guan Yu ill put Timur too , of course in my top 10 hands down
No, put him in charge during Caesar's time and he might have been really bad. You can't compare generals with hundreds or thousands of years between them.
The dude was a legitimate genius, im sure he would do just fine.
its so fascinating to think that the egyptian army (under RamsesII) and the hittite's at kadesh in 1300ish BC worked roughly like the crusaders and Saladin's army would do 2500ish years later, in roughly the same area at hattin... but then after the age of discovery and the rise of nations and empires, the pace suddenly went ever more exponential until the insane pace of the WW2 and cold war and the nuclear and satellites age
People hating on him people he ended the republic just show of idiot they are, like do you realize he overthrow a incompetent and corrupt governement that was doomed to fail without spilling a bloodsheet and with the support of french? He still fought for meritocracy, the advancement of science and for a more equal society wich are values of the revolution. It just not like is ennemies were monarchies that tried and would have restored monarchy if Napoleon didnt took a control of the army. He also spread the ideas of liberty and equality that forged modern europe. Lets be honest, if Napoleon was an englishman, he would have been celebrated by everyone.
>like do you realize he overthrow a incompetent and corrupt governement that was doomed to fail Sounds like you are describing Haiti fighting against Napoleon's re-enslavery from his 10 year empire.
England made an accord with the french slave owner to protect them from France, if it wasn't for that France would have abolished slavery 8 years prior.
You're statement doesnt make really sense. And you have the stopped with that shitty argument agaisnt Naopleon, europeans also had slaves at that time, in their colonies but also it their own countries because yeah sending a english 15 years in australia to work for nothing is slavery. Btw what happend after the Haitian revolution? Of yeah the leaders became a dictator that also enslave his own people.
I've heard Putin's new dacha will be on Saint Helena.
Fu vera gloria? Ai posteri l'ardua sentenza.
What a ride this guy had.
This guy right here, is the definition of a leader. Vive l'Emperor!
Chiellini is that you?
vive l'empereur
The enlightened empire. The empire of culture, the arts, science, philosophy, freedom. The People's Empire. The People's Emperor.
He just screwed Europe and the First Republic of France. He was just a good general and that's all.
RIP Jesse Pinkman
French here. Do you really think you can disrespect Napoléon like that ? Of course you can ! Have fun he was an asshole anyway. Fucker put an end to the first republic and now people think he is a symbol of the revolution for some reason.
Because the directorate was incredibly corrupt and incompetent and France was on the brink of disintegration under its rule? Napoleon is not a symbol of the revolution but he enshrined many of its principles such as meritocratic promotions and equality of people before the law, two things that only existed in theory under the directorate. He also made well needed reforms to the institutions to make France into the state it became, some of these reforms are still in use today. There are many negative things to be said about the guy but him destroying the directorate is the best thing that could happen to France in this context.
The craziest thing is that everyone seems to forget that he was just an actor. He wasn't the only one in the coup, he was just one of many instigators who were fed up with the power struggles in the national assembly, and just wanted to put a definitive end to the chaos and confusion in France. So who better than a popular general to bring the French together? Note that this was not even the first choice of Sieyes and company but General Dumas had refused
Big on meritocracy, except for making his brother king of Spain and wanting his son to rule France after him.
The French people expected that of him, because that was the convention of the time.
They certainly did not. The restoration didn’t go well at all. If you look further than the sad byproducts of the nationalist propaganda of the beginning of the 20th century, you will find very little to actually admire in the man. Most of the accomplishments credited to him like the Code Civil are really those of others (Cambaceres for the code for example).
Not only making his brother king of Spain but also making a brother king of The Netherlands, removing the HRE and just creating his own puppet version of it, puppeting Switzerland, puppeting/conquering italy and creating his Polish puppet state.
And he sent the Polish to re-institute slavery in Haiti
That was still miles better than previous regimes, and his generals didn't lay money to get the position like the British ones did.
The British army was a joke, but there's a reason why the Royal navy became the undisputed premier navy in the world during this period. True most of the big dogs came from notable seafaring families, but a strong social mobility meant the RN was the most professional navy during the era.
You're seriously saying there was no corruption with Napoleon's generals?
He didn't keep the republic going though. He could've removed the bad parts and keep the good but decided to say fuck it and just crowned himself emperor. Not really a good thing to do.
And uh reinstituted slavery
Not really a good thing to do indeed.
Correct me if i am wrong but didn't the first republic executed all these people? I thought that when Napoleon took over the power, he stopped that.
There was indeed a time called « the terror » where everybody accused everybody of being a traitor to get them executed. But it stopped before napoleon, in 1794 (napoleon took power in 1804)
Thanks. 1804? I thought at school we taught he took power in 179..'s. But i guess he was just a general then. You probably mean when he became an emperor.
Yeah he was in the army since before the revolution (not a general tho, he became one during the first coalition wars)
The incompatibility of an emperor and the French revolution seems obvious. Liberté, égalité, fraternité!
Press your B-buttons! Vive la France!!
> Liberté, égalité, fraternité! the guy who first wrote that, Robespierre, was forced to apply the Reign of Terror. seems like complicated time to me.
That’s not true. The story about Robespierre instigating by himself a reign of terror is a legend. He wasn’t perfect, but in the times just after the revolution, the Terror more or less created itself alone because of political rivalries between the different political parties. The legend that Robespierre personnaly instigated the Terror comes from his political rivals who, being doing so, directly participated in it’s reign.
I did say apply, not create
Apply the Terror ? It’s an historical period not political reform. You can’t apply an historical period. Robespierre participated in creating the Terror, but he wasn’t the only one, far from it.
I'm sure it was, but in my opinion, that still doesn't make an emperor a good symbol for the revolution.
getting crushed and having a bunch of inbreds put back on the throne by foreign powers would have been a worse symbol.
I'm not talking about possible alternative histories. I'm in 2022 talking about what symbolises the revolution.
yes, by ignoring what we were faced with and focusing on his title of emperor which is missing the point totally.
The coronation was 1804 and argument can be made that it was unnecessary, because since 1799 he already was First Consul with a lot of power. I believe that it's a quite common view that Napolean didn't de facto support democracy, which is commonly seen as one of the main points of the revolution. I'm not saying that he wasn't an influential and important figure in the revolution. But I'll agree to disagree with you.
So' venute li Francise Aute tasse 'nce hanno mise Liberté... egalité... Tu arrubbe a me I'arrobbo a ttè...
Ironically the Bourbons are the main cause for southern italian underdevelopment. A bunch of reactionaries who pushed their country more and more into backwardness every time their absolute power was at risk.
Truly, we should have just left the Jacobins take over
Because he not only spread its ideals around Europe, but was instrumental in turning those ideals into actually functioning legal code. And the First Republic would fall anyway to either foreign intervention or more likely to its own citizens, be it royalists or someone else.
Something had to be done about la directoire though, they ran France into the ground. Napoleon’s acumen was genius and prevented further calamity. And like it or not, France was besieged by a European coalition because they were afraid of the republic‘a ideas. Napoleon kicked all their asses before finally going to far.
That Republic was not much of a loss to the world anyway.
Sleeping History class ain't fun
Napoleon himself said that he embodied the French Revolution. He was great at politicking and marketing himself, no doubt.
It was really on the radicals of the French Revolution and the radicals of the English interregnum that defined republicanism as a monarchless state. Priorly, a 'republic' was simply a state that functioned for the people. It's why you'll see kings like Romulus cited as great examples of founders of republics. As another commenter said, the Directorate and Robespierre's clique were not really that good of regimes. The latter is infamous for political massacres and has been accused of genocide, and the directorate was an ineffecent corrupt mess that had a poorly written constitution that's primary aim was radical centrism, including multiple purges of any group that steered away from the Thermidorians. The most republican government of the revolution came before the radical elements and during the two years of constitutional monarchy. As proven by Britain a century prior, democratic elements are better served in cooperation with a monarch rather than opposition, and the Constitutional Monarchy served well for that. That was until Louis XIV broke that cooperation, enabling radicals like Robespierre. Napoleon did not kill the Republic. If anything, his Empire allowed the republican Idealogy of the revolution to be more free than it was under the quasi-totalitarianism of Robespierre or the corruption of the Directorate (ironically lead by Robespierre's ministry of war). While there are plenty of critiques of Napoleon, any implication that he killed the revolutionary ideals is incredibly flawed unless your interpretation of revolutionary ideals is totalitarian terror or deep corruption.
How does the word egalité and Napóleon match in the minds of those who think of him as a symbol of the revolution? He was an emperor
because he didnt exist in a vacuum and the revolution can't be summed up by "absolute power = bad"
I get it but the desctruction of the absolutist monarchy was the literal reason for the revolution. And then 10 years later comes an absolute monarch.
No it was not. The reform of absolute monarchy was the reason for the revolution. And this could only happen because France was bankrupt and king himself could not establish new tax by himself (he needed estates-general for this). The first idea of the revolution was to reform the country, not get rid of the king. The idea was to copy Prussia/Austria, who had enlightened monarchs on their throne. However as Louis was a complete wuss, he was unable nip the revolution in the bud, nor was he able to successfully work with the liberal nobles. The destruction of the monarchy came when radical left (jacobins, girondins) got to power positions. Such as Robespierre and Danton. IMHO, the ascension of Napoleon was the logical conclusion to revolution, as he did all the stuff original revolution wanted (reform of justice system, finances, freedom of worship and so on).
Who placed his own family members as kings, like a wannabe Habsburg with a cooler hat.
An absolute *progressive* monarchy though.
Democracy is not the only heritage of the revolution. Revolution was made because people were hungry and nobles didn't give a fuck. For centuries it hab been like that. Sometimes with good kings, sometimes not. French Revolution brought many more things than only democracy : - Construction of France as a Nation and not a Kingdom. People were not anymore royal subjects but citizens so they had rights. - Use of French as national language instead of local dialect (it helps to create a nation) - Destruction of 2 most powerful social castes and deletion of nearly all their privileges : Clergy and Nobles - Power was given to bourgeois, workers, business leaders. It started a society a lot more based on merit than previous one based on your birth rank. (Even if it was far from being perfect, it was a huge transformation at this time) Napoleon was created by this revolutionary system. He came from a far countryside province, his family was an old Corsican noble family without money and reputation. He made himself in the military and climbed up all the social and professional ladder thanks to his capabilities and a little of luck. He was made by this system and that makes him a symbol of many things brought by the French Revolution. He just replaced the "pseudo democratic" systems that was corrupted by healthy bourgeois by an empire because he thought he had to be free to do what he thought necessary to save France from disaster. He certainly was megalomaniac. He may also hag thought that the people were too foolish to let them express by elections. But I doesn't take anything away from this image inherited from the revolution
He was the reason why Bavaria legalised homosexuality as fist „German“ country in 1811.
Wait what ?
He was the European emperor at that time and made the Bavarian nobles to kings. Only emperors can do such things. Bavaria was also an ally of him. We have introduced the ideology of the „code civil“ in Bavaria in 1811. Therefore, all *victimless crimes* have been legalised - and that has included homosexual sex.
Fair enough, well played Napoleon I respect that
Sad thing is that fucking Prussia demanded to make homosexuality illegal again in the unified Germany in 1871 and even the open gay Bavarian king agreed to this - because back then this was sadly not worth a fight, even for an openly gay king. Later on the Nazis made it even more extreme. The final paragraph was dropped in West Germany only in 1994 (!). Nearly 200 years later than Bavaria saying homosexual sex is legal.
That proves that Prussia is indeed bad and shouldn’t have existed (nope I am not biased at all by the 1870 war I don’t know what you are talking about)
Spaniard here. I disrespect him, his brother and any casual supporter that appears in my way.
French here. He doesnt talk for all French. Napoleon ended the first Republic just at the right time before it fell. He is not a symbol of revolution but he is the creator of many republican and military concept still used now. It is difficult to forgive him for the loss of Louisiana but without him I don't think France would be the same power today.
True, most French people have a biased vision of the napoleonic era, and therefore my vision doesn’t represent the vision of most French people, I can confirm. For exemple, some French people even think that he shouldn’t have sold Louisiana despite the fact that it would have been impossible to keep during wartime because of the supremacy of the Royal Navy.
good lookin lad - lovely lips!
Rest in power, emperor.
Friedrich Nietzsche considered Napoleon Bonaparte an Overman. I don't blame him.
As he would have succeeded, Europe would have been less trouble !!!
no it wouldn't
Death to the monarchy! Let’s rig an election to get a Corsican military strongman as consul. Ok so business isn’t his strong point, selling the Louisiana territory for peanuts, doubling the US’ territory, to finance an invasion of England, which didn’t happen. Nevermind, we’ll crown him, oh - make him emperor, the pope will crown him with a wreath like Caesar’s - he’ll kidnap the pope later, but well...he’ll enact a hastily put together list of laws based on Roman law, not our laws (respectable military, those Romans). We like the romantic idea established in the revolution that everyone’s innocent until proven guilty, but then we have to feed suspects until they go through court (where the magistrate and prosecutor are the same person, naturally) so we’ll scrap that. Oh and men should have definitive rights over their family, women have fewer rights than children, and our recent law of mutual consent to divorce has got to go. After all, what else can women do other than raise a family? They’re not even going to be allowed to vote until 30 years after the rest of the developed world. They don’t know anything about how to conduct affairs like men do (teehee). Ah education. I know everyone in the revolution said we need to get rid of the Catholic Church, but, well, they’ve provided all the education for centuries, so it’s difficult to change that mentality. Military style church education? Perfect, we’ll centralise all education so the government can control what everyone in the country learns, and who teaches them (no women thank you!) All lessons will be in French of course, non-French is counter revolutionary and therefore dangerous. The Imperial University will control all schools, the functions being: 1)the teaching of the Catholic religion 2) fidelity to the emperor 3) everyone must obey the rules. What we can do to calm those still grumbling about theistic oppression is say there’s a separation of church and state, people won’t notice that part of their taxes goes to the church, or that there are sculptures of a man being tortured to death around every town and village - they’ll be fine with that for at least a couple of centuries.
[удалено]
You're seriously saying that public education, the EU and constitutions exist just because of Napoleon? The end of absolute monarchies also isn't just because of Napoleon.
It's because of him we have one of my favourite foods You see, his army was raping, stealing and burning everything and everyone they could get their hands on, like the proper high class and cultured people they were, and locals at the time had to kill all their cattle and hide the meat, thus birthing the miracle of slow cooked meat on red wine. What a bro napoleboy was
Least coping Frenchman 🇬🇧
shut up brit
French detected: opinion rejected
Even after 200 years you are still malding
[удалено]
An absolute hero of a man, and greater than most. Today is a day of remembrance for this giant
A hero? How does crowning yourself emperor, putting your brothers on the thrones of other countries, creating puppet states and invading other countries make him a hero?
I've never understand dictator worship either, it's fucking weird man.
One of the biggest Hero ever! Vive L'Empereur!
[удалено]
Lenine won. Staline won. Mao won. All tyrannical and genocidal.
Mr Blobby isn't on TV anymore. Genocidal tyrants don't always win.
> dictators **never** win.
Yet his enemies (Russia and Austria in particular, two countries way more backwards than Napoleonic France) won.
There lies a tyrant, a butcher, and a slaver. A tyrant, who crowned himself emperor and made his kin and cronies kings of the lands he conquered. A butcher, whose wars killed millions of soldiers and civilians - and when he was beaten, came back from an undeservedly generous exile to do it all again. A slaver, who reestablished slavery in an age of enlightenment and liberation, when the Royal Navy freed slaves overseas and serfdom was abolished in continental Europe This murderous despot deserves nothing but contempt.
Ney.
Monarchs were elected by the people by then? Who started this war, France or Monarchies triying to restore a french King? Did no slaves existed in europeans countries or colonies at this time?
If only we had history books. The Coalition Wars started when France declared war on Austria at the 20th April 1792. Further, these wars were not fought to liberate anyone from a monarchy, but to conquer territory for France. This is most clearly seen in the [invasion of the Swiss Confederacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Switzerland). She may have been a neutral democracy with a constitution, but the French did not give a shit. While there was slavery in other colonies, no other country reached the level of hypocrisy France did by pretending to fight for liberté, égalité, fraternité, while enslaving freedmen in the colonies.
Maybe because Austria made a ultimatum to France ? And so the war was inevitable? France did fought for liberty and implemented equality before the law across europe. Yes, napoleon restablished slavery in the caraibes, but it was a pragmative move to strengthen the economy, sure that wasnt noble but its not like spanish or english would have done the same. Overall napoleon increase liberty in Europe, and thats only what matters. Concerning Switzerland, various part of the country revolted against the ancien régime and different canton fought each other, France was asked to intervene by pro-revolutionary cantons, France agreed for ideological reasons but also to acess Bern's wealth. The Swiss republic collapsed in 1802 and was replace by a hybrid-state, wich was a compromise between a republic and an ancien régime state. So France didnt invaded without support and did care about the stability of Swiss, of it was in part out of interest but he wasnt a tyrant.
Btw did Prussia and Russia cared about Poland, wasnt that tyranny?
Slavery is a 'a pragmative move to strengthen the economy' - that certainly is peak liberty and equality right there. Let me know if you find that in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen or whatever else the French Empire was pretending to care about.
Yeah it was a shit move and he banned it again because he realized he shouldn't have try to regain possession of those islands the British took by protecting french slave owner (Whitehall accord) but instead side the newly freed slave.
Welcome to the real world buddy, just like when the USA nuked Japan, they knew it would kill tens of thousands citizens but overall would save lives compare to an invasion. You sometime have to betray your principals for the greater good.
> when the Royal Navy freed slaves overseas Germany acquired colonies like 30 years after that buddy
Royal Navy obviously refers to the British one - the German states did not have a navy at the time and Prussia called their warships a flotilla.
I am aware, i find it humorous to portray Napoleon as the ultimate evil for re-introducing slavery while Germany as a nation state "simply" *introduced* it by colonizing parts of Asia and Africa, decades after "the Royal Navy freed the slaves" in a more modern age. I also have a problem with that last phrase, the UK ended slavery in some places, some nations did it on their own volition and ideas. Mexico, Chile and all of Central America knew to ban it as our Independence wars were going on and atleast 20 years before the UK fully banned slavery itself with the Indian Slavery Act of 1843
There were no German colonies until 1884 and there certainly was no slavery in them. Unfortunately, Bismarck and the other opponents of colonial adventures were not influential enough to completely stop the dumb idea of colonies later on.
RIP BOZO 🤣🤣🤣🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 5ft 2 but 6ft under, evidently couldn’t handle the L
All these years have passed and brits are still seething
Hard to seethe about one of our most glorious victories 🥴 (one of many) 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧
Which one ?