What do you think about Napoleon?

ONE MORE ROUND AND WE HAVE THEM BEATEN!

Don't you know me?!

I AM NEY! NEY! MARSHALL OF FRANCE!

>Veeky Forums
>know anything beyond meme history
I'd go to reddit user

that was a good movie

you should go back as well

"Napoleon is overrated."
-Tolstoy

Napoleon was a Titan of History.
Brought forth by the Great French Revolution, he destroyed the old order, formed modern law and state infrastructure, and the end of divine right.
His soldiers brought their revolutionary ideas with them and they sowed the seeds of doom for autocracy.

His defeat by capitalist imperial Britain set back the cause of human progress only temporarily.

Who else has his name defining an era?

I like batlle at samossiera because what most likley happened is that small polish cavalry unit misunderstood order and instead of scouting the area they charged at the enemy and won the battle

>Manlet frog detected

Who would be THE historian for the Napoleonic Era and on Napoleon himself.

He was a good micromanager. That's why he hated the navy.

David G Chandler.

Thanks m80

He was just a loser in comparison with Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great.

>Genghis Khan
So impressive the man that conquered mostly barren wasteland, and who's empire would just fall apart. Didn't even spread Mongolian culture, just Mongolians would adopt the culture of the land they conquered.

>So impressive the man that conquered mostly barren wasteland, and who's empire would just fall apart.
What???
I bet at least half of Earth population lived on that barren lands of Mongol Empire. Genghis Khan died on the throne and his empire continued to grow after his death.

>Didn't even spread Mongolian culture, just Mongolians would adopt the culture of the land they conquered.
Actually French culture was dominating in Europe before the Revolution. But coincidentally the influence of French culture started to decline after defeat of Napoleon. Or was it not coincidence?

Overrated fag who got btfo by Wellington. If he was so great, he wouldn't have lost.

A man before his time, great conqueror, great reformer, and a great politician. Truly a moment in history where the good guys lost.

He was vastly outnumbered in that conflict as a whole and working with a poorly trained shadow of the French Army. You can't look at 1815 as an accurate representation of his campaigns or his ability as a general, the fact that he made it one hundred days is pretty amazing when you consider that he had already been decisively defeated a year earlier after 16 years of near-continuous warfare with practically all of Europe.

>I bet at least half of Earth population lived on that barren lands of Mongol Empire.

That seems pretty unlikely, since it didn't include India, Southeast Asia, Africa, or most of Europe. The vast majority of the territory that the Mongols controlled is sparsely populated even today, it was practically empty back in the 13th century.

>capitalist imperial Britain

And France under Emperor Napoleon was....what, exactly? A socialist republic?

They had China, trump ace. Also Middle East, Central Asia, part of historical India (Pakistan). Those territories were definitely not sparsely populated. Total population at the Empire's peak before partition exceeded 150 million. After all their genocides. Total population of Earth at that time was about 400 millions.

Lost his virginity to a prostitute.

Any reason he removed his brother from the kingdom of Naples (Where he was popular) and made him King of France (Where everyone hated him)?

Definition of an ubermensch. The world will never witness his like again.

>Sparsely populated
>CHINA
>Sind
>Persia
>Mesopotamia

Pretty sure the Mongol Empire's population dwarfs that of Napoleon's.

they had 25.6% of the world's population in their empire according to estimations. They also killed between 10% and 20% of the world's population in the conquests.

Married the whore as well

Brilliant General but overly ambitious. He should have settled for peace with GB when he saw that there was no way he would win in a trade war with the world's biggest empire.

>settled for peace with GB
GB wouldn't have settled for peace with him. They would have kept tossing money at countries until he lost.

Man he is on alot of documentaries i remember watching, and i always thought he was perhaps the best and most knowledgeable seeming person ive ever seen on the history channel.

Love that nigga, every doco i see with him in it i know will be good.

Ive been looking to do some reading on nap, as so far i have done none. thanks to that other guy for asking and you for answering

He was vastly outnumbered because most men suitable for army were killed or disabled after his previous wars.

He tried again and again. They would never accept because of Muh Balance of Power

>Brought forth by the Great French Revolution, he destroyed the old order
Actually he destroyed the French Reign of Terror "Revolution"
>His soldiers brought their revolutionary ideas with them and they sowed the seeds of doom for autocracy.
They most brought pillage and death. And Napoleon was an autocrat more so than any kingly predecessor.
>His defeat by capitalist imperial Britain set back the cause of human progress only temporarily.
>capitalist
>imperial
>progressivist
Drink bleach please.

You mean spain? The reason is obviously that ruling over spain is a lot more prestigious then ruling some nigger-tier italiens.

>choosing Ney when he could have taken Davout.

His worst decision, right there with invading Russia and not making peace during the summer of 1813.

He outplayed and was on the verge of crushing Wellington, when Blücher ruined all the fun

>He should have settled for peace with GB
Not possible
Britain is the country that started the Napoleonic Wars and kept them raging for so long with their money
They were insanely butthurt about him, it's the last country he could have managed to make bpeace with

>the world's biggest empire.
Britain was no such thing during the Napoleonic Wars
Their empire only became huge when they conquered multiple shitholes in Africa and Asia thank to technology in the 2nd half of the 19th century

Go back to R*ddit now

Damn you're anal pained at your betters.

Napoleonic Era is the Three Kingdoms Period of Europe.

Except they have little to nothing in common.

The citizens of France had equal protection under the law. Britt did not.
In fact, British oligarchs passed laws and took measures to keep the people weak and "in their place".

Britain was the world's first modern capitalist state.
They used their wealth to encourage war against revolutionary France.

How many coalitions did Britain finance before they finally stopped Bonaparte for good?

The French Empire sought a continental European autarky. A united Europe would be it's own self-sustaining economy, without the influence of British gold.

t.eternal anglo

1. Wrong.
Throw red terror ended with the fall of the Committee for Public Security, which was done by the Committee for General Security.
The Directory were conservative revolutionaries.
For a year 1/2 afterwards, the white terror killed thousands of Jacobins.
The Directory stayed in power until Napoleon's coup.
That over 5 years after the Jacobins fall.

2. And what we're their enemies bringing?
Pillage, death and the return of the hated nobility.
French soldiers brought revolutionary ideas that were absorbed by people.
Napoleon was Emperor of the French people, and his innovations improved life for the citizens.
But he was never an autocrat like the Tsar.

So go back to your trap boyfriend and leave history to are serious about it.

He couldn't have settled for peace. They were the aggressors against him, not the other way around.

Napoleon was not exactly a peacenik either. While his opponents started most of the Coalition wars, most of them were directly in response to open french provocations or agressions.

He was a genius. He laid the foundation for the modern military. The corps system was genius. He didn't invent it, but he perfected it and made it work. He was, IMO, the greatest general of all time.

Also quite genius in his love of science and such. Developed the metric system and explored a lot of ancient Egypt.

One of a kind person.

His best campaigns, no particular order:
1797 Italy
1805 Austria
1807 Prussia
1809 Wagram
1813 Dresden and the rest
1814 lightning war
Even the Waterloo campaign he was wrecking the Brits/Prussians until shit went south

t. Britbong

>Wellington was a genius because he seal clubbed poo in loos

Britcucks are pathetic

He had severe stomach pain, quite possibly from stomach cancer. He was in no condition to give orders. Ney fucked up horribly. His right wing also failed to pursue and keep contact with the Prussians.

A theocratic empire with a modern royal line.

>Who else has his name defining an era?

>There are in all the capitals of Europe, a crowd of adventurers and men with plans who roam the world, offering to every sovereign their so-called discoveries which only exist in their imaginations. They're no more than charlatans or imposters, who have no other goal except to grab money. This American is one of that number. Do not speak of him to me any more.

Napoleon about Robert Fulton

>Developed the metric system
No, he didn't. It was established in 1790s, before Napoleon came to power. And became mandatory only in 1937. Napoleon never used metric units in his diaries.

>be Nappy
>make peace with gb
>anglos accept
>refuse to apply the conditions, seize ships, without war declaration

Uh, old one-ball does not have an era named after him.

If Napoopan deployed the Guard at Borodino and decisively defeated the Russian Army, would Alexander 1 have sued for peace? Capturing St.Petersburg doesn't seem likely due to the winter conditions and the roads to St.Petersburg being fortified more and more.

Alexander was insane at this point
He thought that Napoleon was the antichrist and burned half of his country, making hundreds thousands of his own civilianz die of starvation in the process, just to avoid having to agree on some economical treaty with Nappy

he didn't appreciate his best ally enough desu

I dunno, this guy is right. Alexander was nutso.

And yes in hindsight he should have sent in the Guard, but put yourself in his shoes - way deep in enemy territory, army has taken a massive beating (the extent was unclear), and if shit hit the fan he was going to need a reserve to get him back to France.

Which, actually, is what happened. The Guard saved what was left of the army and Napoleon's life during the retreat.

But, he should have sent them in. Napoleon reached great heights by taking risks and not being conservative - in 1812, he went too conservative and it cost him.

>Who else has his name defining an era?

I've sometimes heard people call the Macedonian Era the Alexandrine Age and the 5th century in Athens the Periclean Age, but I guess that's not universally accepted. All of the rest I can think of also tend to be geographically specific - for example the Carolingian Age (Western Europe), the Victorian Period (England) etc.

No, surrender to Napoleon meant the lose of throne to Alexander. He warned and explained it directly to the ambassador of Napoleon before the war. Bat Nap was not smart enough to believe it. When the war started it became the war of attrition from the start. If Nap wanted to win then he should have planned the war which will take many years. It was too boring for Nap. So he made a a bet that Alex bluffs and lost miserably.

Alexander knew Napoleon very well because he had Talleyrand as a spy. Napoleon was megalomaniac which didn't know when to stop.
Scorched earth tactic had a sense. It was not half country, only zone along the road to Moscow. Provisions will burn or eaten by Napoleon's soldiers, civilians will not have it anyway. War for economical treaty is just stupid propaganda.

>But, he should have sent them in.
It was useless. Russian army wouldn't be completely defeated even by the Guards. Also there was a chance that the battle will continue on the next day or will be another battle before Moscow.

>No, surrender to Napoleon meant the lose of throne to Alexander.

How?
Napoleon wouldnt have deposed Alexander
He'd have done like he did to Austria the two times he conquered Vienna: force the country to submitt to him but let its royals and sovereignty intact

He would be deposed by Russian nobles. Alex was not popular, especially thanks to Austerlitz and Tilsit.

>Napoleon was megalomaniac which didn't know when to stop.

Nice meme. Drawing Napoleon deep into Russia was not the plan. Losing Moscow was not the plan. They only got drawn deep in because the Russian armies weren't able to coordinate an effective response to Napoleon's massive juggernaut, so they retreated.

If Napoleon had gone in with a modest force like his past wars, they might have been enticed to stay put and fight it out, and Napoleon may have defeated Russia like he had done in the past.

It was a series of unfortunate circumstances that ended up with the disaster for Napoleon.

His last moment to salvage the situation was when he went conservative again and decided not to push through the Russians on the south road, and instead retraced their steps on the north road, which was already foraged and bare of food. That, and early winter fucked them.

It was still a skillfully handled retreat, and a miracle that any of them made it out alive.

I'm a loud and proud patriotic Britfag. But nigga, don't be talking shit about my homie Ney.

He dindu nuffin wrong.

>They only got drawn deep in because the Russian armies weren't able to coordinate an effective response to Napoleon's massive juggernaut, so they retreated.
They were outnumbered, so retreat was the only right logical answer. Didn't N predicted it? Or he just counted on stupidity of Russians? It was not wise from his side.
>If Napoleon had gone in with a modest force like his past wars, they might have been enticed to stay put and fight it out, and Napoleon may have defeated Russia like he had done in the past.
Maybe. He would win few battles, take some territories under control, but Alex doesn't surrender. To conquer all Russia this way you need few years. N was not interested in that. You don't understand his character, he wanted quick Glory.
>It was a series of unfortunate circumstances that ended up with the disaster for Napoleon.
It was inevitable. Many his aides warned him, but he didn't listen, he didn't listen his own senses. It was like madness.
>His last moment to salvage the situation was when he went conservative again and decided not to push through the Russians on the south road, and instead retraced their steps on the north road, which was already foraged and bare of food. That, and early winter fucked them.
At least northern road was guarded, on the new unexplored road his army would become easy prey for Russian light cavalry. Winter happens every year. Good general should be prepared.
>It was still a skillfully handled retreat, and a miracle that any of them made it out alive.
Great retreat, but all campaign was the Greatest Fail in military history.

>They were outnumbered, so retreat was the only right logical answer. Didn't N predicted it? Or he just counted on stupidity of Russians? It was not wise from his side.

Napoleon was outnumbered at Austerlitz and Jena too, yet he was on the offensive
Retreating wasnt something automatical for an outnumbered army

No, he thought that such an overwhelming army would basically scare the Russians into surrendering.

Alex did surrender, multiple times. Depending on how you define "surrender." But Russia was defeated multiple times by Napoleon prior to 1812.

It wasn't madness. Napoleon got what he wanted, basically. If you told him before the invasion that he would defeat the main Russian army in a pitched battle and capture Moscow, he would take that every time.

Winter happens every year but the winter that year came weeks early. Napoleon meticulously studied the weather patterns and got fucked by random chance. One more week of no snow and his army would have been fine. He did linger in Moscow a bit too long.

It was definitely NOT the greatest fail in military history. Not even close. To even capture Moscow was a massive achievement.

Alex surrendered only once in Tilsit and this hurted him politically very much, so he could not repeat it anymore. Hope to scare was miscalculation of Napoleon, diplomacy was his weakest point and he didn't listen to pros under him.

Getting what he want no mattter the cost is not maddnes? Well, megalomania is not mental disease officially. So you are right, technically.

Winter is an exuse of bad loser. Russian army suffered from winter too, they were not naturally resistant to cold, but their morale was high.

Capturing an pillaging big city may be a great achivement. For barbarian. But N posed himself as noble and educated ruler. And almost all loot was lost during the retreat.

When you are outnumbered at least twice, your army is split and your opponent is Napoleon you have no other option but retreat.

Russia was defeated in 1805 and 1807

But okay slavboo, we get it, Napoleon sucked and Alexander was awesome.

Russia didn't sign the peace in 1805, you don't know the facts. 1805-1807 was one war for them.

There are two kinds of strategist:
1)Battlefield strategists, who command on battlefield
2)War strategist who define plans for campaign and for war.

Napoleon was genius as first and average or below average as second. Why? Because of his personality. He cared more about what happens now than about long term consequences. He loved himself more than he loved France. The worst is that he considered himself as genius war strategist and didn't listen advices. So he could win battles but lost in the end. He dominated only weaker states or states with even worse war strategists than himself like Austria.

manlets went too far in a few places

>Russia didn't sign the peace in 1805, you don't know the facts. 1805-1807 was one war for them.

They got cucked hard in 1805, and were able to go home only because Nappy allowed it

They went home because Austria signed treaty with Nap.

>sowed the seeds of doom for autocracy
>extremely popular emperor
Stay deluded

The napoleon at waterloo is not the napoleon that won 5 coalition wars

If he had started the battle 2 hrs earlier and not used such rigid tactics at the beginning he would have won.

>if only Lannes were here

Or if Grouchy had just done his damn job.

>implying Wellington didn't rate him highly

he fucking hated him and thought he was an uncouth pleb and even worse, an Italian, but he took him seriously as a commander

The only things I know about Napoleon is from the board game Stratego.

He had a small penis.

based as fuck

>tried to keep the Jew bankers out of France (Rothschild)
>took nearly all of Europe in 7 coalition forces to finally bring him down
>unfucked the revolution, gave people radical equality comparedto the rest of Europe the time
>cucked Egypt savagely
>revolutionized artillery warfare

>implying your mother was alive in the 18th century

My sides.

Well never know
And before you post your bait article, know that even if his penis hadnt been burned 200 years ago when when he died but conserved instead, it wouldnt be indicative of its erect size when Napoleon was alive (because flaccid + dead for two centuries)

Why does he look so sad in this painting?

Don't forget he was extremely interested in the sciences and did a ton for learning about ancient Egypt.

That, and he drove the creation/use of the modern military structure used by every country.

Dunno, cause he was crossing the Alps and was cold maybe