The achievements of this man is remarkable, why does the average person not have some sort of admiration for his work and his reform of the government in France? He managed to turn a country built on a weak Republic into a strong Nationalist Empire by the end of his reign.
Is it because it was 200 years ago?
Other urls found in this thread:
ibtimes.co.uk
imdb.com
twitter.com
because no one really understands how great a change the enlightenment and modernisation was since we live in a bizarre theme park version of it where people talk about how all our knowledge systems and culture are natural
no one gives a shit about that manlet fuck lol
woah don't trigger me bro culture is relative
Considering the enormous number of books, films, documentaries, war games and Napoleon societies, I would say that a great many people admire and respect the Emperor.
It's because we live in an English-centered culture. That's all the masses still believe the British propaganda that Napoleon was a manlet.
There's really not that many films
Imagine if Kubrick actually got to make his Napoleon film
I have a copy of Kubrick's script.
It's quite good.
A young Jack Nicholson in the title could have been interesting.
But I must disagree with you on this:
Type "Napoleon" into the IMDB.
That's very true, I've tried to find many Napoleonic films that center towards his life in modern day Hollywood and it is very rare, Documentaries are good but it seems there has been a deficiency on him for about a good forty years.
Also, imagine if Spielberg got to make his mini series about Napoleon.
It hasn't been long enough to realize how influential he was to all of history. Everything got worse after.
In some parts he's a hero. In former Denmark-Norway he's been talked about warmly, there are songs about him traversing the alps etc.
Because strong nationalist empires are badwrong?
More seriously, he literally destroyed the republican values (in the original sense of the word obviously) of the nation that the world's most dominant hyperpower cribbed most of it's notes on governing from. He's at least as much of a living embodiment of what can go wrong with democracy as Hitler is, sans the whole holocaust bit. Don't get me wrong, the man was a damn fine general, but come on.
I'd say he's seen pretty positively everywhere in the world except for anglos who are eternally butthurt about him for some reason. Not even Germans or Austrians think bad stuff about him.
In school, we were taught very little about Napoleon except that he was short, beta as fuck and had a tiny baby dick.
We even had to sit down and watch a 40 min documentary on how Napoleon had a tiny baby dick.
It was awful.
ibtimes.co.uk
>"Napoleon was at last defeated by the Seventh Coalition, led by our own Duke of Wellington – whose penis was no doubt enormous..."
>"Knowing in advance that following his death in 1821 his boner part would be preserved for the ages probably wouldn't have helped matters."
Are the Brits this mad they got BTFO 6 times?
Eternal anglo
Eternal butthurt
I respect the guy for being a military genius and for thankfully ridding the world of tons of bogniggers + putting their lands once again under rightful frankish administration, but a lot of the shit he stood for is unequivocally bad and he shit up Europe in a lot of ways.
Nigga got his own Total War, what more do you want?
Napoleon believed in Rosseau's "social contract" in which the state controlled the religious and social function of society. He himself did not personally believe in the concept of a republic ("a republic of 40 million? HA! it is a notion the French people are infatuated with, but like all phases will wear off soon enough") but he did believe in the idea of national sovereignty.
For Napoleon, it was alright to have a dictator or ruler to dominate politics if said ruler had the backing and support of the people. That is why france was the only nation to have plebiscites on constitutions and the nature of Napoleon's government; although the results of the yes vote would not doubt be biased (thanks to Lucien's corruption and vote rigging) Napoleon could measure the amount of hostility to the vote by the number of absent and "no" voters.
It is also why napoleon abdicated the second time; he had lost the battle of waterloo but had plenty of men and arms ready to raise another army. Even his minister of war Marshall devout implored him to overturn the senate and legislative body with the Paris Feodoreres (special Parisian militia). Yet, at Napoleons abdication speech he said "Her (France's) happiness is my only thought...I have sacrificed all my interests for the good of the country".
What and why Napoleon is such a mystifying character is because he effectively blasts away modern stereotypical beliefs of government; he is a modern paradox. A magnificent benevolent dictatorship. When a man is raised to believe anything but democracy is evil people become captivated by a dictatorship that appears to have more democratic principle then even modern free societies today.
More? (Helps me revise for an exam tomorrow)
ask me about napoleon the military revolutionary
Napoleon as the diplomat
Napoleon's reversion to ancient regime monarchy
Napoleon's ambition
>Napoleon believed in Rosseau's "social contract"
Truly the mark of great statesmen.
I must warn you, historiography varies heavily on napoleon's actual political manifesto, but if you look carefully in some of Napoleon's council of state views and his actual actions it begins to appear
>council of state 1802 "The Government is the centre of society like the sun: all other institutions must orbit it"
>Napoleon's radical reform of the Church, allowing him to nominate bishops, making them government employees by assigning them wages, and effectively neutering the power of the Church though his organic articles. Napoleon radically reduced the number of religious holidays and enforced a greater degree of uniformity, he even used religion as state propaganda. In the child's catechism of 1806 "what should we think of those who neglect their duty to the emperor? They are going against the order established by god"
>Napoleonic censorship, the creation in 1803 of the office of censor, the 1810 creation of office of printing and publishing, the limitation of the freedom of press by suppressing newspapers. as napoleon said "do not let the newspapers say anything against me".
>Napoleon's police force, his state prisons, even his conscription system all equally demanded state control and dominance
Napoleon effectively made the state the source of pleasure, speech and action fro the French people, and in doing so radically revolutionised the nature of European states.
More?
200 years and anglos are still THIS much butthurt
I was mostly joking, even though Robespierre was a huge "fan" of Rousseau but things didn't really get to go the way he wanted.
>Napoleon's radical reform of the Church
The concordat is quite important and while normalizing relations again with the Church it was hugely in his favor. How did the Catholic populace responded to this, was it enough to win them over after what happened during the revolution ? Or was he just tolerated as the lesser of two evils ?
effectively, prior to the concordat there was massive civil unrest due to the revolution's attack on religion. During the directory and committee of public safety, the French revolutionary government effectively called all priests who did not agree to the civil constitution of the clergy refractory and supporters of the ancient regime. This initially meant the death penalty and then under the directory mass deportation (around 7000)
Of course, the local communities had a massive revolt against the civil government, actively breaking out refractory priests in their hundreds. In one case in desiere, 700 Frenchman broke into the local jail to free the "monster of jesus christ" the abbe Joseph Mallae. This religious revolt was then being used by the émigré population to fuel their armies and return back to france.
When napoleon becomes consul, nearly every member of the tribune and his army were against the reconciliation of the church. it was seen as the betrayal of the revolution. Yet napoleon realised that "without god, there can be no government", and so set out to achieve the concordat.
Napoleon himself is religiously ambiguous, most of the time he's just religiously pragmatic, using it to control the state "It was by making myself a catholic that I pacified the vendee, and it was by making myself a moslem that I established myself in Egypt." The Young Napoleon had no love for religion, and in his discors sur le bon heur called it "the Soup of all prejudices". Yet, Napoleon still went to the pope, and spent the longest time ever negotiating in all his treaties to achieve the concordat (9 months). He even told the diplomat caulcourt to treat the pope "as if he had 200,000 men, no more." Napoleon was not religious, but he believed and respected the power the Church could wield in service to the state.
Initially, the Concordat allowed the return of all émigré preachers, and ended the religious civil strife within France...
... It also ended the fountain of support the émigré armies had within france. By achieving the concordat, Napoleon lopped off one of the greatest internal threats facing his new regime.
For the people, it was a restoration of order, and once more their local priests could provide sermons supporting the new regime (at the demands of the pope). As Napoleon listened to the bells of Notre dame peeling once more, and his revolutionary general Dumas complaining about "a load of monkish mummery" that it appeared that civil strife had ended for france and religion.
However, as time went on, Napoleon once again began to grow restless about religious practices. he sought not a partnership but a domination or church to the state. Napoleon began banning religious festivities so that "every day was a working day" and only 4 religious holidays remained. Yet, The people of france often ignored these proclamations, and priests often woke up to find their flock waiting in church to receive sermons on previously banned holidays. Equally, Napoleon's control on the church began to waiver by 1809; he assumed that by electing bishops and owning the wages given to them that they would support him, but he often found them siding with the pope on religious matters. In a fit of rage, he ordered the council of Fontainebleau in 1809 removed due to their sympathetic support of the Pope's revolt against new concordats, and the greatest insult came from the 13 black cardinals that refused to attend Napoleon's wedding in 1810 to Marie Louise because it had not been endorsed by the Pope. Effectively, Napoleon brought religious peace back to france to a grateful civilian population, but he eventually failed to dominate it fully through administration or government
The achievements of this man is remarkable, why does the average person not have some sort of admiration for his work and his reform of the government in Germany? He managed to turn a country built on a weak Republic into a strong Nationalist Empire by the end of his reign.
Is it because it was 70 years ago?
Time
Napoleon had a soldie15 years of dominating Europe to change the systems, style and nature of it's government]
Hitler only had 4 years in which society only knew a constant steady warfare.
Now, if Hitler had effectively dominated Europe for another 10 years before toppling, his new system and government may have influenced European society to adapt and evolve. instead, his empire collapsed before any real significant state or societal transformations could take place.
So, when Hitler did fall there was nothing to make him the good guy, no system that could vindicate him. When napoleon fell, the people that toppled him were copying his exact state and social systems, and unfortunately you can't demonise a man you effectively mimicked for the past decade or so.
It was a joke but thank you for taking it apart.
>He managed to turn a country built on a weak Republic
Since when was Nazi Germany built on a weak republic? It was built on a strong empire that was temporarily a weak republic.
It's because he gassen the kikes, mostly
>WE MUST HAVE A REVOLUTION TO RID OURSELVES OF MONARCHY
>I'M THE EMPEROR NOW
t. napoleong
>we must do everything to rid ourselves of monarchy!
>fuck, now everyone's trying to assassinate me because I'm not a monarch
>what Talleyrand? maybe I should become a monarch and stop them sending chouans and washed up generals to try and murder me?
>sure why not, as long as I have the consent of the people and continue on the values of meritocracy, legal equality and controlled voting what's the big deal?
T.NAPOLEON
>he didn't even die in battle
How pathetic can you be? Left to die on an island in the middle of bumfuck nowhere.
>beat the shit out of everyone for a decade and a half
>get deported
>come back and get enough support to raise another army
>lose a battle, instead of raising even more men you simply abdicate to protect and preserve the gains of the French revolution as best you can.
The Seventh Coalition did not declare war on a country but rather on a man.
>this pathetic desu senpai
I've always found it ironic that he was very much the epitome of the 'enlightened despot' that so many Enlightenment thinkers yearned for but that he could only rise to such a position due to the inefficiency of the current republican regime which had itself overthrown the previous monarchy.
He was the perfect blend of the old and new values of France.
do u even Weimarer Republik?
He isn't
Tactics are taught at west point
Frogs consider him a national hero
It sounds like HBO is going to make it. I'm not sure how good it will be without Kubrick directing but it will still be interesting
>DABID! HOW ABOUT WE CAST PETER DINKLAGE AS NAPOLEON DABID, 'BOUT THE RIGHT SIZE ISN'T HE?
>WE NEED A NUDE SCENE DABID, PUT MORE NUDE SCENES SO EVERYONE SEE HIS DICK DABID
>HAVE JOSEPHINE BITE NABLON'S EAR SAYING "TU VEUX UNE GENTILLE AMANTE, MAIS TU AS BESOIN D'UNE MECHANTE CHATTE", GOTTA GET DA VIEWS DABID
Calm down with your autistic rants, it's fucking abhorrent.
>Trying to contain the cancerous /tv/ shitposters.
Good luck with that.
he's probably German and missed the joke
there's already a series on Napoleon, made by the french which is pretty good. imdb.com
Because his time is over, we live in Hitlers time now.
He's literally proto-Hitler.
>He's literally Hitler
>>>tumblr
because the eternal anglo does whatever they can to discredit his achievements and tarnish his memory
That's totally unfair. My penis is also like 1.5 inches flaccid but it grows to like 6.5 inches.
I still don't understand how people are so ignorant about this.
The general rule is to remove three inches, sorry buddy.
>more biographies written on Napoleon than anyone else in the world
>disregarded
I want Bonapartists to leave
In the U.S., once we get to the 18th century, our history curriculum kind of switches to focus on American history from then up until the present. And there's not much overlap between the U.S. and Napoleon (or really any significant foreign affairs until the 20th century). I don't know half as much about him as I feel I should.
Good stuff, user.
>culture is relative
Who is triggering whom here
because he's a little dwarf with a small penis, who gives a shit?
Was Napoleon a competent diplomat? Do you think he could have achieved his ambition through diplomatic means? What were the pros and cons of his reversion of the ancient regime?
>implying Dinklage wouldn't make an excellent Napoleon
>Napoleon was a grower not a shower
You can take the man out of Italy but you can't take Italy out of the man.
>1000 years between Charles and Napoleon
Where were the heroes?
Yes, but he commanded respect and usually made armistices with countries based on threats. He was an amazing commander and threatened many countries, including Milan and the Papal States in the Italian campaign.
American here
I don't usually shit on my own country (even though it's complete trash at the moment), but the teaching of the French Revolution was completely fucked.
We're taught that the French government descended into chaos after the monarchy was overthrown and then France ended up with a dictator, Napoleon.
Genghis Khan is missing. As is Louis XIV, if having two from the same nation doesn't trigger your autism
>tfw it triggers mine
But thats exactly what happened.
>As is Louis XIV, if having two from the same nation doesn't trigger your autism
He pioneed the whole "one country against the whole world and still winning" thing
>There's really not that many films
As far as historical characters goes he's ranked somewhere up in the top 10.
In the US its Civil/slavery, more slavery with a sprinkle of civil war, WW2 and black rights(the prohibition might be mentioned if your teacher is cool, but they don't get to get into how interesting that very brief era was culturally and how it affected the US legally and culturally), and then the 60's-70's.
Sure it's relative. All the dark races' cultures are inferior relative to Eurocentrism.
Funny because Napoleon was of completely average height for his time. There are generally two reasons why Napoleon's "short man syndrome" lives on in today's popular culture:
1: The average Royal-Guard member was of an above-average build, notably taller and wider than the average man of the time, (it was all about intimidation and appearances.) Relative to the guardsman he was always surrounded by, Napoleon was definitely smaller.
2: The British started smear-campaigning propaganda against Napoleon, one of the primary smears were jabs at Napoleon's diminutive size.
Wikipedia: "During the Napoleonic Wars he was taken seriously by the British press as a dangerous tyrant, poised to invade. He was often referred to by the British as Boney. A nursery rhyme warned children that Bonaparte ravenously ate naughty people; the "bogeyman".[226] The British Tory press sometimes depicted Napoleon as much smaller than average height, and this image persists. Confusion about his height also results from the difference between the French pouce and British inch—2.71 cm and 2.54 cm, respectively. The myth of the "Napoleon Complex” — named after him to describe men who have an inferiority complex — stems primarily from the fact that he was listed, incorrectly, as 5 feet 2 inches (in French units) at the time of his death.[227] In fact, he was 1.68 metres (5 ft 6 in) tall, an average height for a man in that period.[note 11]"
Hitler supplanted him in the popular mind. There can only be one crazed conquerer at any one point.
>Why is Napoleon so disregarded in the modern world?
He lost. And he was the good guys. The winners of the Napoleonic wars, "enlightened" conservative monarchies and British banks, wrote history for the next hundred years.
Tamerlane deserves an inclusion as well.
Didn't he get a dessert named after him?
This.
The same reason the Spanish Inquisition and Catholicism gets criticized. A kid in my college thought the Spanish Inquisition killed millions of people, when it was really only a couple thousand at most.
The general rule? Have you been measuring each cock before you wrap your lips around it and suck it?Then do you pause and take out the tape again? Has anyone ever done that? Has anyone done that comparison in a scientific study? God, people were already so annoying erroneously saying "he was a fucking Manlet, now I got to hear this dicklet nonsense too?
No one expects the actual death figures for the spanish inquisition.
Yeah, I did learn a great deal about him in high school and college. In lower grades it was mostly just that we bought Louisiana from him.
Yeah not when it's cold. That fucker will go damn near inverted. Full 6" ready to go.
What are you on guys, those are clearly great men for the western civilization. Ching ping pongs not allowed.
Sources put it at ~5,000 over a 350 year period
Due to A*glo propaganda.
yeah right
Your average person probably knows at least one thing about Napoleon which is remarkable considering the number of historical figures completely unknown to plebs.
Zyklon B is a particulate, not a gas.
Picture like that medicated talcum powder you put on your balls, except it has cyanide instead of antihistamines.
If it functioned like the hydrogen cyanide gas that the US uses for executions, it would be useless in its original task as a pesticide.
but Nazi Germany resulted in the neutering of German nationalism after it ended, and divided the nation in half.
Don't forget us, the Spaniards. Fuck him, fuck Pepe Botella and fuck Fernando VII "el Felón".
¡Viva la Pepa!
Thank you for the correction. Still well short of Anglo propaganda and it really demonstrates the necessity of reading multiple sources and taking all their measures with a grain of salt
he was a freemasonic proto-communist who laid the foundations for the domination of international jewry
Pepe Botella was objectively better than any spanish monarch of the 19th or 18th century, though. Specially better than Fernando VII. And he was not even alcoholic, he didn't drink, the botella thing was just spanish shitposting.
And La Pepa was basically a constitution with the same ideology of Napoleon+official catholicism.
His accent is absolute shit, so there's a problem.
Napoleon saved the revolution you fucking burger
You have a deluded vision of "democracy" that simply did not exist at the time. You also seem to forget how wonderful this ""democracy"" was before Napoleon took charge.
Don't deny it, Napoleon saved France and saved the revolution by putting in place laws and ideas that would live on to this day.
"""""dictator"""""
>Hitler
>Great
kys
What books should I read I'd I want to get better grasp on Napoleon, his ruling policies, and such, and his wars?
Napoleon III > Napoleon I
Fact.
He lost in the first war he fought, he is not superior to Napoleon Bonaparte.
Napoleon, a life
France won the Crimean War
very aptly put my friend, that's a beautiful way of looking at it
truly testament to the infinite adaptability of the human brain. a person conditioned to dry, mostly empty medieval peasant life would probably go into shock if they were to be transplanted into our time and attempted to integrate