I first heard the name in the 1959 hit song Waterloo by Stonewall Jackson, when I was eight. I thought it was a strange name but didn’t realize its significance, even though the song mentions Napoleon.
I’ve heard it said that in 200 years Waterloo and Watergate will be confused and mean the same thing.
And he did all of the atrocities by his ain self ? Musta been a busy guy ;).
Anyway, back on topic : as **clairobscur *says, outside of a few bona fide but generally harmless enthusiasts who really have a quasi-worship thing going on, I don’t think we’re all that “wrapped up” in Napoleon. He’s pretty rarely mentioned, or invoked if you prefer - not at all like, I dunno, the Founding Fathers or Lincoln can be in the US.
That being said, he is indeed remembered more as the guy who stood tall against all of Europe combined, defended the Revolution (if only to better subvert it himself, yes, we know, shaddap :)), wouldn’t go down even when exiled, laid the groundwork of modern French legislation and the metric system and so forth, than as the guy who got hundred thousands of people killed in ultimately rather futile wars.
I hadn’t heard anything about the supposed kerfluffle about the coin, but I’ll readily admit I’m not exactly what you’d call a news hound.
one of my French teachers back in high school was one of these *doux dingues *(sweet crazies). Had a briefcase stamped with the imperial N, neckties emblazoned with the bee and everything. Took the class on a school trip to the Invalides (which, in case y’alls don’t know, is both a war museum and the place Napoleon’s ashes are buried in a tasteful, humble, unassuming 15 ft. high sarcophagus), where he behaved a bit like he was in church or something. It was slightly weird. Great teacher, though. Had a real passion for the job.
I don’t think there’s such a consensus anywhere. You will note that the wars of this era are called “war of the first coalition”, “war of the second coalition”, “war of the third coalition”, “war of the fourth coalition” and “war of the fifth coalition”, not “war of the first French invasion, second French invasion, etc…”
France was becoming more and more bloated with each failing coalition, fueling the need for a new one, but it’s not like France was attacking left and right innocent and unsuspecting bystanders.
Not really, no. As **clairobscur **says, the national narrative seems to boil down to the idea that the old monarchies of Europe were banding up to crush plucky little Revolutionary France, and Nappy repeatedly struck back. Sometimes pre-emptively so :o, if only so that the brunt of the fighting would take place anywhere but on French soil.
I’m personally much too ignorant about the facts, figures and personalities of that period of history to have any sort of valid opinion about it ; or objectively assess whether the man was a bloodthirsty megalomaniac tyrant, a spirited patriot who did whatever he had to do, or anything inbetween. I tend to believe he started as the latter but gradually shifted towards the former ; but it’s more based on vague impressions and cultural osmosis than anything.
At this point I don’t think it matters overly much, one way or the other. It was in the past which is a different country, and besides the wretch is dead.
I wouldn’t disagree with too much of this. Napoleon can be viewed as a quite remarkable, enlightened and admirable person in some regards whilst at the same time being a warmongering megalomaniac. Only in 2nd rate novels or movies are individuals all bad or all good.
When discussing Napoleon I am always reminded of Mark Twain’s quote which im paraphrasing “if all you have is a hammer soon everything starts to look like a nail”. Well, if you have proven yorself a truly great general of the ages soon everything starts looking as if it can be won by war. One of the reasons Hitler invaded Russia was because of over-confidence; overconfidence brought about by success in the West. I see parallels with Napoleon and Hitler in that regard. Please note, im not comparing the two men in any other way.
edit: we in Britain also have a love/hate relationship with Napoleon. I don’t believe the opinion of him here is that much different to that in large tracts of Europe and further afield.
I don’t think “bloodthirsty” would really apply, although he wasn’t shy about shedding blood. It’s surprising how the huge losses of the Napoleonic wars are rarely mentioned except in relation with the campaign of Russia. They were high enough to significantly impact France’s demography. “Megalomaniac” I would rather use for people who think they’re Napoleon, not for those who actually are , but his ambition and pride had no bound. I don’t know if he was a patriot, either. It seems that he bought into some of the ideals of the revolution at first, though.
Undoubtfully a genius. Being a great general is one thing, but he was an even more impressive administrator, IMO.
But from my personal point of view, he commited an unforgivable sin : he overthrew the republic. I don’t like him the slightest bit. :mad: