This is January Discussion, you can earn points here for taking part, to get them you must write more than a line or two!

SPAMMING WILL BE DELETED!

 

 

Napoleone di Buonaparte;

Life Span - 15 August 1769 – 5 May 1821

 

Known For - Napoleon was a military and political leader of France and Emperor of the French as Napoleon I, whose actions shaped European politics in the early 19th century.

 

Napoleon decided on a military career when he was a child, winning a scholarship to a French military academy at age 14. His meteoric rise shocked not only France but all of Europe, and his military conquests threatened the stability of the world.

 

Napoleon was one of the greatest military commanders in history. He has also been portrayed as a power hungry conqueror. Napoleon denied those accusations. He argued that he was building a federation of free peoples in a Europe united under a liberal government. But if this was his goal, he intended to achieve it by taking power in his own hands. However, in the states he created, Napoleon granted constitutions, introduced law codes, abolished feudalism, created efficient governments and fostered education, science, literature and the arts.

 

Emperor Napoleon proved to be an excellent civil administrator. One of his greatest achievements was his supervision of the revision and collection of French law into codes. The new law codes—seven in number—incorporated some of the freedoms gained by the people of France during the French revolution, including religious toleration and the abolition of serfdom. The most famous of the codes, the Code Napoleon or Code Civil, still forms the basis of French civil law. Napoleon also centralized France's government by appointing prefects to administer regions called departments, into which France was divided.

 

While Napoleon believed in government "for" the people, he rejected government "by" the people. His France was a police state with a vast network of secret police and spies. The police shut down plays containing any hint of disagreement or criticism of the government. The press was controlled by the state. It was impossible to express an opinion without Napoleon's approval.

 

 

Credit for above ^

Was Napoleon a helper or a hindrance to the formation of government we have today?

 

What are your opinions on this Legend?

 

 

Hindrance! definitely.. in my opinion :P

 

From what i remember from my History classes there was the French revolution and then in like the 1790s Napolean came and started up a new aristocracy re-creating a monarchie des droits divins. Took all the power and France was back where it started :( I'll study this again and get back to it!

In my opinion, Napoleon may have been an intelligent, accomplished commander and civil administrator, but his pride was the end of him. Waterloo is of course the prime example of this. He had become over confident in himself and thought that he would win, despite the casualties. I'm pretty sure this loss is taught as something not to do in officer training schools in the military lol He did end serfdom in France though, which was a great civil accomplishment. However, his government censored everything, not allowing any sort of expression by the people. So while they were free in a civil sense, they were not free in an artistic or opinionated sense. So ultimately, I say helper, but BARELY.

 

 

“I closed the gulf of anarchy and brought order out of chaos. I rewarded merit regardless of birth or wealth, wherever I found it. I abolished feudalism and restored equality to all regardless of religion and before the law. I fought the decrepit monarchies of the Old Regime because the alternative was the destruction of all this. I purified the Revolution.”

 

Every statement of this quote is true. Yet the truth of the statement is it's weakness. You can only reform so far until you are in complete control. He wasn't exiled to Elba for nothing.

ummmm its not to go without saying that he WAS a good military leade butttt the fact that he is a power hungery fool gives him weakness so i would think he is a hindrance.

 

this is a pretty full legend that doesnt give the gorry details...way far better than the kind of informative writing i could do i would probaly just write the biggest facts and let the details stand...sorta like the way im writting this opinion on the subject of Napolean...

I like Napoleon. That was a funny movie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry Limi, you know it had to be done at some point.

 

I think Napoleon got "too big for his britches" so to speak when he declared himself Emperor.

In fact, Beethoven was had written a symphony for/about him which he titled "Bonaparte", but changed it when Napoleon declared himself emperor, renaming it "Eroica", meaning "Heroic".

Did you know that Hitler was actually compared to Napoleon when it comes to being a great military leader?

 

Just saying

 

I actually got to learn about Napoleon, about time, and he's quite fasinating but then again I find all history fasinating The man was brilliant and very carasmatic.

O' Napoleon...

 

The worlds greatest military genuis and conqueror of Europe died on May 5, 1821. Napoleons last words were “ France , armée, tête d'armée, Joséphine”. This translates to France, Army, Head of the Army, Joséphine. These words will be forever scarred across the rugged face of the earth and his current wife. His wife died later that day. The cause of death was poisoning. Napoleon Bonapartes life ended almost fifty two from his beginning breath. The first Emperor of France was gone. Napoleon Bonaparte was dead! A man thought to be a god among humans was now gone. Napoleon certainly led an amazing life! Napoleon changed the world in less than a decade of ruling most of Europe. His cause of death was stomach cancer, just like his father. This was the end of the Napoleon Bonaparte era even though his spirit dwells within all young soldiers.

 

Napoleon was one of the greatest tacticians known in history. They still study many of his plans and troop movements. Anyone who is that much of a person who can change the face of the world is definitely a help. Even if only like Hitler it teaches the rest of us a lesson of what not to let happen. Hitler needed support after all. Anyways Napoleon was a decent emperor who brought peace and stability to the lands he conquered, which ultimately is what people want more than civil rights and 'freedom'.

Anyways Napoleon was a decent emperor who brought peace and stability to the lands he conquered, which ultimately is what people want more than civil rights and 'freedom'.

 

 

I think as a tactician and a military leader there are few that match Napoleon's skill level, however, Napoleon is a prime example of how there are different types of leaders.

 

The reason I quoted Jenn's post... I agree that when land is controlled by chaos the thing most needed and wanted attribute is stability, however, in a society past that point that is completely untrue. People, as a whole, are made to want more, to want to improve themselves. Even the richest man will take advantage of a good situation even if he really has nothing to gain from it but more money. No person could truly ever be happy in a nation so controlled by its government that it becomes stagnant without room for any type of growth or expression. This can be seen repeatedly throughout history by rebellions of the lower classes multiple times.

 

If Napoleon had not died and had continued to rule he would have had to constantly put down rebellions of the people he oppressed with his "no questioning the government" policies. People have a natural tendency to question everything around them. For example, look at a child. They're favorite thing to say is "why". As adults we often have the same questions, we're just better at with holding the questions.

 

Which leads me back to my opening statement... There are many types of leaders. Many brilliant military leaders are such because of the way their minds work. Many times they are more logical, letting their mind rule all their thoughts, putting everything into neat numbers and calculations. Napoleon is a good example of this type of leader, another example would be General Patton during World War II. Political leaders should not be that way. That is often one of the problems we have today in our politics. Many politicians have never been in a situation where they are living from paycheck to paycheck as a normal working class person. Most were born to a wealthy family and to the privileges there in. That is not saying ALL are such, but the vast majority have never experienced truly hard times for themselves. To lead people and to make laws that directly impact those people, and not yourself, against those peoples' wills is a revolt waiting to happen. Government exists only at the will of the people.. What is a nation without anyone to govern?

 

I say all this to make this point. Napoleon was a brilliant tactician, however as a political leader he would have never lasted because he was oppressive and a dictator and at that point in history the whole world was going through so many changes that his type of political system was bound to fail. While he may have created order, it was this order which would have been his downfall in the end. Leaders such as Napoleon only keep their power by keeping the people so impoverished that they have no choice but to depend on the government for their livelihood. Napoleon, had he lived a long life, would have been a hindrance to the evolution of government into the democracies and republics that have formed today.

Did you know that Hitler was actually compared to Napoleon when it comes to being a great military leader?

 

Just saying

 

I actually got to learn about Napoleon, about time, and he's quite fasinating but then again I find all history fasinating The man was brilliant and very carasmatic.

 

Hmmm I would say as in all things it is relative, he was a hinderance and a helper.

 

And you can see how in the end a person like Otto von Bismarck took the opportunity after Napoleon's involvement in Preussen (Prussia - I think it is in english) to sway the peoples minds to rise up and join him. Which wasn't quite a positive thing. But he was beneficial because of how he tried to rule. As Al Jenn said (and Kaylen quoted), "Napoleon was a decent emperor who brought peace and stability to the lands he conquered, which ultimately is what people want more than civil rights and 'freedom'." And his form of government was clearly a sound one, considering that the French continued to build their government on it after.

 

 

>.>

 

As to why I quoted Lessa, perhaps they can be created as great military leaders, both idiots saw their ends in Russia. But yes as people they can easily be compared. Take for example how close to Napoleon's heart it was that he was so short. And compare that to Hitlers fears about his own possible jewish heritage. Also how they both had secret networks within their people. While you can see they are very similar, in the end Napoleon wasn't the quite the monster Hitler was.

Did you know that Hitler was actually compared to Napoleon when it comes to being a great military leader?

 

Just saying

 

I actually got to learn about Napoleon, about time, and he's quite fasinating but then again I find all history fasinating The man was brilliant and very carasmatic.

 

Hmmm I would say as in all things it is relative, he was a hinderance and a helper.

 

And you can see how in the end a person like Otto von Bismarck took the opportunity after Napoleon's involvement in Preussen (Prussia - I think it is in english) to sway the peoples minds to rise up and join him. Which wasn't quite a positive thing. But he was beneficial because of how he tried to rule. As Al Jenn said (and Kaylen quoted), "Napoleon was a decent emperor who brought peace and stability to the lands he conquered, which ultimately is what people want more than civil rights and 'freedom'." And his form of government was clearly a sound one, considering that the French continued to build their government on it after.

 

Wasn't what Napolean did was re install the Absolute Monarchy basically but this time with the Bourgeois as the Noblesse instead. He declared himself Emperor and took command of all the sectors of power. I could be wrong though about his course of action cos I just studied him briefly and I can't seem to find the right words cos i studied in french >_>

 

It always bothered me that happened cos the french revolution was to pretty much get rid of the monarchy and get some equality but then they let Napolean walse in and set it right back up..

Napoleon the great tyrant as he is called from where I come. He was so hated and despised that he singlehandedly managed to unleash such a nationalism that it laid the groundwork for a unified German nation. He was so disliked that University students in their thousands would drop out of their studies to become lawyers, doctors and artists simply to enlist in the military. Not to mention the ancient Black, Red and Gold colors of the Holy Roman Empire which were forgotten for centuries, were re-modernized as a symbol to unite all Germans whose hearts screamed for freedom, opposing dictatorship and oppression(i.e fighting Napoleon to the last breath).

 

Yeah. Can't say I am too fond of that Corsican tyrant. But in the end he was decisively crushed by the Germans in the Battle of Nations and later in his second tenure at Waterloo. Albeit. Without Napoleon there probably would never have been a Germany. There would not have been a figure that was so hated, despised and frowned upon that rival German states could put their differences aside for a joint union.

 

Not to mention that Napoleon was a fool for marching into Russia and not taking St. Petersburg.

In my opinion, Napoleon may have been an intelligent, accomplished commander and civil administrator, but his pride was the end of him. Waterloo is of course the prime example of this. He had become over confident in himself and thought that he would win, despite the casualties. I'm pretty sure this loss is taught as something not to do in officer training schools in the military lol He did end serfdom in France though, which was a great civil accomplishment. However, his government censored everything, not allowing any sort of expression by the people. So while they were free in a civil sense, they were not free in an artistic or opinionated sense. So ultimately, I say helper, but BARELY.

 

 

“I closed the gulf of anarchy and brought order out of chaos. I rewarded merit regardless of birth or wealth, wherever I found it. I abolished feudalism and restored equality to all regardless of religion and before the law. I fought the decrepit monarchies of the Old Regime because the alternative was the destruction of all this. I purified the Revolution.”

 

Every statement of this quote is true. Yet the truth of the statement is it's weakness. You can only reform so far until you are in complete control. He wasn't exiled to Elba for nothing.

 

There are tactical lessons to be learned from any battle. Waterloo was not hopeless for Napoleon like you make it seem. He very nearly won. Napoleon's main tactic was defeat in detail. He aimed to prevent the British and their allies from joining together on the same battlefield. Unfortunately, his attacks weren't as effective as he expected. I watched an interesting show on Waterloo on the History Channel I think. All I remember from it is that Napoleon failed to capture some location he wanted because of artillery. He didn't bring his large guns to where they were needed. Also, the British had taken to putting shrapnel in their rounds >.<

Did you know that Hitler was actually compared to Napoleon when it comes to being a great military leader?

 

Just saying

 

I actually got to learn about Napoleon, about time, and he's quite fasinating but then again I find all history fasinating The man was brilliant and very carasmatic.

 

Everything I've heard of Hitler paints him to be a horrible military commander. He didn't trust his generals and so had an overlapping and complicated command structure that prevented any one general from doing what he needed to do.

Napoleon the great tyrant as he is called from where I come. He was so hated and despised that he singlehandedly managed to unleash such a nationalism that it laid the groundwork for a unified German nation. He was so disliked that University students in their thousands would drop out of their studies to become lawyers, doctors and artists simply to enlist in the military. Not to mention the ancient Black, Red and Gold colors of the Holy Roman Empire which were forgotten for centuries, were re-modernized as a symbol to unite all Germans whose hearts screamed for freedom, opposing dictatorship and oppression(i.e fighting Napoleon to the last breath).

 

Yeah. Can't say I am too fond of that Corsican tyrant. But in the end he was decisively crushed by the Germans in the Battle of Nations and later in his second tenure at Waterloo. Albeit. Without Napoleon there probably would never have been a Germany. There would not have been a figure that was so hated, despised and frowned upon that rival German states could put their differences aside for a joint union.

 

Not to mention that Napoleon was a fool for marching into Russia and not taking St. Petersburg.

 

Chien Allemand

. . . i've never been compared to napoleon. . .

. . . i've never been compared to napoleon. . .

 

I would take that as a complement if I were you. Napoleon was a tyrant that used force to oppress many societies, including his own. Napoleon was a prime example of what happens when a ruler goes too far, a symbol of what we should fight against at any cost.

 

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," -John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton.

 

In summary, our current form of government was helped by Napoleon, because he was the antagonist that we built our governments to oppose.

15 points to;

 

Limi

Tiinker

MCS

Deadlyfriend

Mirsh

Lessa

Al Jenn

Kaylen

Ty

Wombat

Arafellin Wolfbrother