I watched a TV show a while back about Nostradamus. Apparently, Nossy predicted that there would be three anti-christs. The first anti-christ was Napolean.
That reminded me that Napolean was considered evil. What did he do that was so bad?
Well, Napoleon waged a series of wars and battles across Europe that produced an awful lot of death and suffering. There are those who champion Bonaparte because he was an upstart non-aristocrat, and they think the anti-Bonapartists just don’t like the idea of a lower-class nobody beating them. Napoleon’s treatment of conquered people wasn’t exemplary, at least according to the fiction I’ve read (War and Peace, C.S. Forester novels – he wrote quite a bit about the Napoleonic wars, even besides Hornblower). You can make the same arguments against any world-conqueror (Alexander the Great, for instance). From the vantage of much later in time uniting a large chunk of land and imposing standards seems like a good thing (Hellenistic Culture, the Napoleonic Code), but if you’re there at the time having your belongings looted, your kinfolk raped, and yourself injured or killed looks like a version of hell. I’ve never heard that Napoleon’s conquests were ever anything but a naked grab for power and territory.
Well, Hitler and Stalin do make Napoleon look quaint by comparison. While he was a military genius, he did engage in despotism in the countries he conquered and waged aggressive war.
Well, his handwriting was execrable.
Add in unclear orders to Ney at Quatre Bois, and a reluctance to commit his Old Guard.
Just because a TV show on Nostradamus characterizes Nappy as an “antichrist” does not make him so. Phenomenally innovative and successful commander (until he got the great idea for a winter vacation in Russia.) And responsible for considerable social innovations.
Just had that nagging little flaw concerning megalomania!
Also perhaps because he upset the existing social order by overthrowing established governments… This would get him a lot of bad press outside of France. Being occupied by or threatened by Bonaparte won’t make one especially friendly to him.
Then within France there is the whole issue of what I suppose you could call basic honesty or trustworthiness. Given an education at the (Royal) Ecole Militare, then becoming active in the revolution to overthrow the monarchy; becoming a general of the supposedly egalitarian Republic, then overthrowing it to become First Consul and later Emperor (dictator), “turning Turk” in Cairo out of blatant self-interest, etc. etc. If I were a Frenchman of his times, I would find his Russian adventure with the incredibly horrendous casualties unforgiveable.
I actually have often wondered why the French didn’t (or still don’t) look on him almost as the Germans look on Hitler.
As an aisde, there is a famous graph showing the Russian expedition; it is cited in a book called (IIRC) Graphic Presentation of Statistical Data. French troop strength is represented as a line of ever-decreasing width on a map of European Russia as the army moved into and then out of Russia. Does anyone know if it is avaialble somewhere on the web?
Also perhaps because he upset the existing social order by overthrowing established governments… This would get him a lot of bad press outside of France. Being occupied by or threatened by Bonaparte won’t make one especially friendly to him.
Then within France there is the whole issue of what I suppose you could call basic honesty or trustworthiness. Given an education at the (Royal) Ecole Militare, then becoming active in the revolution to overthrow the monarchy; becoming a general of the supposedly egalitarian Republic, then overthrowing it to become First Consul and later Emperor (dictator), “turning Turk” in Cairo out of blatant self-interest, etc. etc. If I were a Frenchman of his times, I would find his Russian adventure with the incredibly horrendous casualties unforgiveable.
I actually have often wondered why the French didn’t (or still don’t) look on him almost as the Germans look on Hitler.
As an aisde, there is a famous graph showing the Russian expedition; it is cited in a book called (IIRC) Graphic Presentation of Statistical Data. French troop strength is represented as a line of ever-decreasing width on a map of European Russia as the army moved into and then out of Russia. Does anyone know if it is avaialble somewhere on the web?
The book is “The Visual Display of Quantitative Information” by Edward Tufte. You can buy the graph as a poster on Tufte’s web site. Breaking out my copy of the book, the graph:
Sometime in the early Sixties, when I was starting high school, I asked my mother–who had a high-school education and diploma, no more–whether Napoleon was “good” or “bad.” She said, “It depends on how you look at it.” I did not discuss the subject further, with her or anyone else.
If you are nationalistic in almost any country that has been a major power, from Italy, China, GB, Netherlands right up to the USA then you tend to look at those days as a sort of golden age.
Italians look to Rome, Scandinavia looks to the Vikings, and you could go on to the Brtish Empire etc.
This completely ignores the suffering caused to other nationals, and it seems that we never learn, since history seems to be a continous conveyor belt of empires rising and crushing irdinary people, and then those empires falling, only to be replaced by other empires often of nations who were formerly oppressed.
In Napoleon’s case, you have to wonder just when he would have been satisified, he didn’t seem to have an overiding goal, he just kept going, leading his country to destruction until his resources ran out.
Although he set up a system of administration which still has strong influences in modern Europe, the cost to ordinary folk was extremely high, his methods of mobilisation set a model for what was to follow in later wars, and this is what enabled the sheer scale of warfare, and suffering, to increase almost exponentially.
He also banned the books of Marquis de Sade because HE deemed them pornographic, AND broke up a marriage.
Not quite anti-christ material, but he weren’t no angel neither.
Napoleon claimed he seized power to protect democracy and the ordinary person; however, he wiped out democracy and installed himself and his relatives as a new aristocracy. So he was an enemy of democracy, not to mention a big fat hypocrite.
He is a classic example of a military dictator who takes advantage of a weak democracy to gain power–he happened to be a bit more talented than the average banana republic dictactor, but the principle is the same.
He kept invading neighbouring countries, killing hundreds of thousands of people in battles, devastating the countryside, sacking the cities, and imposing a dictatorial rule. He did this to the Netherlands, Germany (then consiting of over three hundred sovereign states), Italy (then consisting of about a dozen states), Poland, Spain, Portugal, and probably several others. In each country thus subjected he would conscript a huge proportion of the men of military age, and use then to invade the next country on his list. And although his tactics were often successful (except against the British under Wellington or Beresford) they did tend to be very expensive in casualties. Besides which his grand strategies were often insane, and he was very neglectful about supplying his troops with food (ie. he barely bothered to make any arrangements at all).
So imagine that some clown with an army invades your country without a pretext, killing a lot of people in your army. That he strips all the food off your farm, loots the banks, churches, museums and rich homes in your neighbourhood, appoints his brother to be your king, and gets his troops to hunt down and shoot anyone who resists. That he then drafts your brothers, father, and sons, and marches them away to be starved and frozen to death in his megalomaniacal invasion of Russia. What would you think of him? Multiply that by the number of relatives of all the millions of people who died in his armies or fighting against them. That’s what Napoléon did that was so bad.
And by the way: some respondents have said that Napoleon was bad-mouthed by the Establishment because he was lower-class. This is not true. The Buonapartes were nobility. Poor (as nobles went), and provincial (Corsican), but nobles and entitled to the privileges thereof. Which is how Napoléon got into the Royal Military Academy, and got a military command, in the first place.
Regards,
Agback
In the 18th (and 19th) centuries, war was seen by many members of the British Aristocracy (and those of other countries) as a kind of blood sport, with the accent on sport.
Objectives were usually limited, and at the end of the war honour was usually satisfied with perhaps some land changing hands here and there, together with financial reparations and the like.
I think that Napoleon offended the Code of Practice for War by taking it too seriously. He was a professional. He was ‘not one of us’. That’s why he had to be stopped.
Nobody mentioned his obvious weakness for fresh fruit. I’d say Wellington was thankful for that one.
No one has mentioned his ugly trait of making his kin rulers (and arranging/forcing Dynastic marriages to confer legitimacy) over vassal states.
Also, these “allied” states (not all ruled by family Napleon) contibuted approx. 1/3 of his Grand Armee troops [Saxons, Barvarians, Savoy(s?), Nice(s?] et al.
So, while some Frenchmen could take some Natl. pride in the Grand Empire, how much harder to do that as a Barvarian or “Italian” (as we would understand that term today).
Napolean was a great military leader - nothing bad
He fought for the freedom of his country - nothing bad
He might have gotten a little carried away though when he tried to conquer the world - but still he wasnt that bad of a person
He did not exactly fight for the freedom of his country, if he had stayed within his own borders and fought off invaders or occupiers of historically French lands then you would have a case.
He fought to impose his will on other nations, which in turn led to a uniformity of state appuratus which is a very strong influence today.
This order he brought about came at a huge price for the conquered and for his own people.
It is strange how differant nationalities choose their heroes an conveniently overlook less pleasant aspects of their behaviour.
Folk who should know better admire Napoleon, but he was an arsehole of the highest order, militarily gifted, a good administrator, but directly responsible for the deaths of millions for little more than his own ambition.
We in the UK have chosen a few arseholes as our heroes, Francis Drake, Cecil Rhodes.
In factt “arseholes as heroes” deserves a thread all its own.
Still think that Napoleon should be right at the top, just on sheer scale.
It is my understanding that british propaganda has a big part to play in the hatred of napoleon, why wouldn’t it? he almost destroyed them 200 years ago. Countries always paint their enemies in a negative light.
He was accomplished as hell though. Conquered italy by 26, ran France competently by 32, overthrew most of western & eastern europe by 40.
There are probably several reasons. Of course, the “glorious days” idea probably played a part, but more important, he was soon regretted after the restauration of monarchy. Not only he totally reorganized the country (justice system, administraitive system, education system, etc…) but also, despite being a dictator (and it’s not like there were many democracies around at this time to compare with), he kept a lot of the rights and principles established during the revolution (like the equality before law, for instance). Having the right to cast an meaningful vote wasn’t necessarilly the most important thing for the populace. Owning your own farmland, being able to reach a high position on the basis of your own merits, having the right to hunt, etc…could be more significant. Beside, he stabilized the country politically and economically, something the people were longing after during the republican period.
So, his reign was probably quickly perceived as a “golden age” by comparison with what was existing before and what would exist later. The annoying part about the hundreds of thousands of young frenchmen killed during the Napoleonic wars was probably compensated by the memories of the military glory (and anyway, France had been at war with essentially the whole of Europe for ten years before Napoleon, so it’s not like it was something new).
The golden legend of Napoleon appeared very quickly. Even a democrat like Victor Hugo would praise him in his poetry. I think he has been somehow perceived as in continuity with the revolution and at least part of its ideals, and that the return of the kings had been seen as the end of a dream (at least in retrospect).
I think this positive view of Napoleon in France, during the XIX° century, has survived until now. Beside, as another poster pointed out, it’s not the first time an asshole becomes a popular figure. And he was a very efficient asshole, and certainly an interesting character.