Napolean. Anti-Christ?

Great Debates
1

Not sure where this belongs, but seems a little more involved than a simple IMHO. Please move if not.

I remember something about Nostradamus (sp?) saying there would be 3 A/C’s, with Hitler and Napolean being the first two. Hitler I can see earning the name, but what exactly was the deal with Napolean?

It seems widely accepted that he was a great military leader, but my focus on historic wars is more concentrated on WWII and the War of Independence. I only have a very rudimentary knowledge of N.P.

So what I want to know is, what is the truth behind his leadership, stature in history and his effect on France and the rest of Europe? Also, is there any lasting legacy of his that still shows, in any way, on today’s world?

2

Granted that I do everything I can to ignore him, but as far as I know Nostradamus never said anything of the sort. The only one of his poems I’ve heard related to Hitler was one in which he talked about Hister, which is not even a person, it’s part of the Danube. Anything related to Napoleon - again, no anti-Christ reference that I know of - is also wishful thinking.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_051.html

3

Well, the Nostradamus part was what made me think of it. But it really has no bearing on Napolean himself for this thread. Maybe I can get a change of the thread title tomorrow.

The point is, while not knowing much about him, it seems there’s a general attitude of negativity toward him. I’m wondering what both sides say, as I’m sure there must be supporters and detractors of him here. For now, I’m keeping an open mind since, again, I don’t know enough of him to form a valid opinion.

4

I always figured the Nappy-AC identification came from these factors- seemingly undefeatable military might, he was too Catholic for the Protties & too secular for the Catholics (he took the crown from the Pope & put in on himself at his coronation), his political roots in the French Revolution (Jacobin Illuminist!), and his seemingly realistic ambition to unite Europe under his reign.

Also, to really reach, Napole anBuon aparte= 6 6 6, AND N-apoleon = Apollyon, the destroying king-demon of the Abyss in Revelation 9.

5

This was his big claim to “evil.” He overwhelmed every country he faced for years. And, at a time when warfare was allegedly more “civilized,” the courtesies extended to combatants did not extend to civilians; his armies were pretty ruthless in taking what they needed and suppressing dissent (note Goya’s painting El Tris de Mayo . In fact, Napoleon did a pretty good job of setting up the first totalitarian state. The French kings had long had a solid bureaucracy in place to run much of the country, but Napoleon expanded and modified its functions to include secret police.

A certain amount of his notoriety was the result of the people who opposed him, of course. While he re-established an imperial court as soon as he had the power to do so, he was still the ruler of the country that had nominally thrown off the accepted order of nobility, divine rights of kings, and similar beliefs. He was perceived as a serious threat by every monarchy in Europe, not merely because he intended to conquer them, (they were all familiar with conquest), but because he was perceived as destroying the very foundations of society. As long as those monarchies had presses with which to condemn him, (and as soon as they had overthrown him and re-established the French monarchy), they cranked out tract after tract condemning him not merely as a tyrant, but as a destroyer of all that was good.

6

And don’t forget that he kept a llama named Tina.

7

Napoleon looks better and better as time goes by in my opinion and as we discovered in Hitler and Stalin what a real ‘monster’ is.

8

I am pretty sure the idea of Napoleon as Antichrist was popular even in Napoleon’s days, I think there was even reference to it in a tale of two cities. That or another famous book from the period which was about Russia at war with Napoleonic France.

Why was he considered the antichrist? Because he was an imperialist warmongerer. He overthrew much of europe. He wasn’t exactly evil in the totalitarian sense of the word, but he was imperialistic and he was seen by some as a threat to all that the French Revolution fought for like representative government.

Using the label antichrist to describe your political opponents isn’t new though. Ayatollah Khomeni, Saddam Hussein, Martin Luther, Pope Leo X (who was pope when Luther was around), Genghis Kahn, some Roman leaders, Hitler, Stalin, etc. have all been labeled the antichrist. To name a few.

9

War and Peace

10

I’m not sure the monsters have gotten any worse. Probably there are just so many more ways for them to carry out their monstrousness…

11

Along with insanely easy access to almost instantaneous information from all over the world, it no longer takes decades to document the scope of brutality.

12

Actually, this would not have figured into the perceptions of most people who used the epithet “antichrist.” While the goals of the French Revolution continued to be cherished by enough people to spur outbreaks of anti-government unrest in 1830 and 1848, the general feeling toward the French Revolution, itself, were that it was an inmitigated disaster. It was exactly the republican sentiments of the Revolution (to which Napoleon continued to give lip service, even as he crowned himself emperor) that were often considered the most terrifying aspect of the French experience.

13

Well, despite the fact he was a tactical genius and politically very astute, a lot of his organizational capability comes from his chief of staff, Berthier, who was able to not only stay up for days on end without sleep relaying Napoleon’s order but was also able to “read his mind”, being a military man himself, and translate Napoleon’s general instructions into more detailed ones.

Well, he commissioned the creation of the Code Napoleon, which is still the basis of law in some parts of the world (as opposed to English common law.)

He caused the final collapse of the Holy Roman Empire after the war with Prussia in 1807, with unknown subsequent affects on Germany in the latter part of the 19th century. (I.e. if he hadnt given the final push, who knows how long before Prussia could finally become Germany?)

As well, and this is probably more of an early Republic thing than a Napoleonic thing, but when the French armies invaded Western Germany and Italy they would often help destroy the remnants of the old monarchical states and institute a more republican-friendly regime. These were done away with after France was defeated, but perhaps the taste of more liberty accelerated the revolutions throughout Europe in the latter part of the 19th century.

In addition, the Napoleonic wars themselves influenced the nature of warfare for the next 50 years. Despite the fact that armored cavalry was on the wane, Napoleon’s cuirassiers did so well versus other, less armored, enemies, that other nations tried to emulate them (I’m not sure when they realized their mistake, but I’m sure it happened right around the same time rifled muskets became popular, putting the final death knell into the age when hand-to-hand combat would regularly decide the outcome of battles.)

In addition, an officer serving with Russia write a little book on tactics that the United States used as part of its officer training regime. Many officers in the American Civil War were influenced by Jomini, for good or ill (mainly for ill, but they were probably not worse of than if they followed another randomly out-of-date manual rather than common sense formations. I’m pulling that out of my posterior, though, so take that with a grain of salt)

14

I love the SDMB. With a simple turn down a particular street you’ve never traveled, the wealth of information is staggering.

15

Monsters may always have been the same but I dont think Napoleon belongs in the category. Compare say his opening of the ghettoes and his extending of civil rights to jews with Hitler’s barbarism. He was for all his faults a very different type of man then Hitler or Stalin.

16

Especially when you compare his “endgame” tactics vis a vis those of Hitler. While Napoleon probably had the power to clamp down even tighter on the country via his enthusiastic police and espionage corps, he did not do so when it was clear that he would be doomed without doing so. Now whether he was clear-headed enough to see that he would be doomed even with doing so, or that he did not have the political power to do this, or whether instead it was actually being less evil than the great dictators of the 20th century can be debated, but I believe he was indeed more scrupulous than they were.

Now, if you believe he was less evil than Hitler, less evil than Stalin is a given, unless you make the same argument that the reason Hitler did not commit atrocities on the scale of Stalin is that he didn’t have the political power. I would sort of buy that argument (as there was some successful resistance to implementing mass extermination in the beginning,) but I think it’s also that Hitler may have been slightly less evil than Stalin.

17

There’s nothing so odd about that. Kemel Attaturk had an entire menagerie called Abdul!