Why is Napoleon seen as the next Caesar?

Roman republic would have lasted twice as long without cuckzar, queen of byrothina

Napoleon is seen as Caesar because his propaganda portrayed him that way because he needed a solid ideology which he could unite European countries which hate each other to live under the de facto heir to the roman empire.

Hitler did the same through the use of eagle standards and roman salutes.

Before he took command as the general of the interior he wrote a history of Rome

His legion conquered italy, crossing the Alps like hannibal then the Rubicon like caesar "liberating" Italian under his dictatorship

The overthrow of the French directorate then he was established as a consul , a roman senator rank

He conquered Egypt and ruled as caesar and later Augustus.

His crowning as emporer through which he asserted his dominence over rome by taking the crown from the pope and putting it on his own head. The crown is called the crown of Charlemagne. As in Charlemagne the holt roman emporer.

He defeated the actual holy roman emporer in battle and Francis I rightfully abolished the HRE , because it's been integrated into napoleon's empire.

His son napoleon II was meant to be the first king of Rome in a new Roman Empire

The Russians who happen to considered themselves sucessors of Rome didn't let that hapoen, because...jews lol

>He was a poorly-spoken Corsican who was relentlessly cuckolded by his wife Josephine, and he had lost many wars

He lost two. And he won five (or four, depending on how you count them) wars against the most powerful states on the planet with few to no allies.

>relentlessly cuckolded by his wife Josephine

First of all he was only cuckolded once. Second of all, how is this relevant to his political or military prowess?

>Caesar's Empire lasted over a millennium, while his couldn't even survive a mere ten years.

The Roman Empire wasn't subject to constant and organized attempts to destroy it by several countries as powerful or more powerful then itself.

It's also silly to compare a centralized late 18th-early 19th enlightened autocracy to a sprawling ancient Empire.

Caesar defeated a bunch of backward Gauls
Napoleon defeated all the most powerful countries of his time combined

Although I think the OP is a retard, look it up. Napoleon had been cuckolded by several men.

Why this meme, don't talk about things you don't know, he had around 20 mistresses or so, and took one right after he found out he was being cucked, as soon as he was back from egypt a new man he told josephine to cut that shit out.

He even was married to a new women so he could have royal babies.

Read Andrew Roberts one volume biography.

Napoleon did not lose many wars.
In the end, from 1812-1815 he did indeed lose.

But before that?

Napoleon was far more innovative in socio-economic and legal matters.

Cesar's adopted nephew was the first emperor of Rome.

Napoleon ruled over far more territory and people.

But both men are Titans of Western History.

Compare and contrast them, but they did live 1800 years apart.

Because he was the single most powerful European leader who controlled most of Europe which hadn't been seen since the days of the glory that was the Roman Empire.

>Caesar did not establish an empire
True.
>Augustus did.
Wrong.

>true
>wrong
pls explain

I'd say they're about equal legacy-wise in the sense that their legacies are ambiguous. Caesar and Napoleon were both "great men" who had ability, charisma and authority. These qualities have been an inspiration to generations.

On the other hand, the link between Caesar and the Roman Empire is a controversial one as is Napoleon's legacy in Europe is also murky. We also have to remember Caesar's career was quite conventional until the first triumvirate whereas Napoleon rose to power during the extraordinary events of the French revolution. Caesar's family was slightly obscure but of fine lineage whereas Napoleon was from an relatively obscure Corsican noble family. Napoleon's rise can be interpreted as more dramatic and as a fulfillment of the Revolution's aspirations to throw "throwing open positions to talent." On the other hand, one can argue that the French Revolution loosened constraints on everyone, so its not surprising that the best rose to the top. From this perspective, Caesar comes out the better man because he worked within the constraints of traditional Roman society (albeit a society tormented by the legacies of the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla and the corrupting influence of imperialism more generally).

Napoleon ruled well, even over conquered territory in Italy and along the Rhine. However, his constant warmongering had a corrosive effect on the French economy and population. Tens of thousands of Frenchmen died in his wars. Warfare boosted some industries but smothered others. But the most tragic consequence is that Napoleon's ultimate defeat in 1814/1815 subjected France to the occupation of coalition forces. After Waterloo especially, the occupation caused unconscionable destruction, death, pillage and rape. On top of this, the coalition piled on top of France a huge indemnity, which before Napoleon's return was actually tolerable. So, arguably, Napoleon brought France to its greatest heights but, when his gambles failed (cont.)

when his gambles failed, he also became the cause of its permanent decline militarily, economically and by consequence geopolitically. Napoleon's other legacies are well known. He left a memory of good government; his law code persisted in France other countries which Napoleon had occupied; he tamed the Revolution by delivering order, stability and eliminating its excesses. He made peace with the church but also curbed its influence and oversaw the disintegration of its institutions and infrastructure (more out of neglect than an active pursuit of its destruction). Then again, Napoleon's achievements in all these regards are overrated. Many of his so-called reforms had been implemented by the Directory, whose accomplishments are severely underrated. In any case, the Napoleonic state, while bringing order and uniformity, also had a toxic legacy of sorts. In theory, and in actuality, the post-Napoleonic state, which was a direct continuation of Napoleon's own regime, made the state the central institution of politics, society and the state. The state was seen as a force for good and the French would never go on to adopt the Anglo-American liberal idea that the state needed to be restrained. Therefore, the state became the arbiter of everything. It alone decided the fate of the nation and provided it with political, ideological and economic direction. It was the central arena of elites.

Trolling is a art.

With regards to the loss of hegemony I mentioned earlier, Napoleon also did play a part in one of France's biggest problems in the 19th and 20th centuries, namely population growth. Birthrates had declined as early as the 18th century and started slowing down during the revolution in the 1790s, but it was under Napoleon's regime that the demographic slowdown accelerated. Why did this happen? Perhaps, one might argue, the revolution's destruction of social and economic institutions, the church and its pro-natalist doctrines especially, may have only began to take effect when a new generation came of age during the Napoleonic era. The Revolution no doubt triggered social, economic and political stability as well: all detriments to population growth. But Napoleon surely abetted the decline of the birthrate. As mentioned earlier, he neglected the Catholic church and so lost an important tool to boost birth rates. And, again, Napoleon's continued warfare continued to create a feeling of instability that discouraged childbearing. But most of all, the Napoleonic code was the death blow to demography. The Code's stipulation that inheritance be split equally among heirs prompted families to limit the amount of children they had, leading to decline of French manpower over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The shortage of men, interestingly, led several million Italian, Spanish and Polish workers to immigrate to France by the late nineteenth century, a phenomenon that caused much social tension in French society.

Also forgot to mention that the death of so many men in the 1789-1815 also restrained birthrates.

Another thing is that the nineteenth century saw a huge spike in illegitimate births as indicated by the swelling of orphanages and foundling hospitals. This might indicate several things. The dilapidation of the church may have led to an increase of pre-marital sex. Alternatively, it confirms that the inheritance clause of the Civil Code encouraged parents to get rid of excess children to prevent the division of the family's domain. iirc, infanticide also increased as a result.

>infanticide also increased as a result.
also increased because of the Code*. To boot, foundling hospitals and orphanages had high deathrates.

I actually was just thinking recently about how similar Napoleon III and Augustus are.

Both were heirs to their uncles. Both laid the foundations of modern France/imperial Rome. Both were a far cry from the military leaders their uncles were, but were actually better political leaders. Both focused more on governing the land they already had as opposed to conquering as much of the world as they could, like their predecessors. Both underestimated the Germans and got BTFO as a result.

Napoleon fucked so many women while married to Josephine, the number of his lovers is around 70-80.

>Napoleon III
>laid the foundations of modern France
nope
>better political leader
questionable considering his debacles in Mexico and his declaration of war on Prussia

>focused more on governing the land they already had as opposed to conquering as much of the world as they could
military glory was a pillar of Napoleon III's legitimacy, hence his wars in Mexico, Italy and against Prussia.

>MEXICO

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOU STHAT DID NOT HAPPEN NAPOLEON DID NOT DECALRE WAR ON MEXICO MEXCO DIDN'T EVEN EXIST BACK THEMN YOU FUCKING IDIOT DO YOU EVEN THINK JESUS CHRIST I HATE YOU

CONT.

MEXICO DIDN'T EXIST, HOW CAN YOU EVEN SAY IT WAS MEXICO? DO YOU MEAN SPAIN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED SPAIN HAPPENED, THINK FOR A FUCKING MOMENT

that's his grand-son,son.

>>muh greatest empire ever, folded over a thousand times so it could last for 1000 years

1922.

1991

2017.

Think for a moment user, did he say 'on' Mexico or 'in' Mexico? Napo III declared war on the Mexican republic.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_intervention_in_Mexico

He didn't specify that it was Napoleon III, jackass.

>Cuckolded once
Josephine kept the lover, so it likely occurred more than once, but once Napoleon caught wind of it, he had a string of affairs as well.

Then he divorced Josephine, and got a younger, nicer piece of ass (who once he lost, had children with another man, an Austrian diplomat/soldier, forgot his name).

Though he did adopt Josephine's children as his own, so literally, my wife's son.

>military glory was a pillar of Napoleon III's legitimacy, hence his wars in Mexico, Italy and against Prussia.
>Napoleon III's legitimacy
>Napoleon III

That sounds Napoleon i i i , not Napoleon 3rd. think for a second

>He didn't specify that it was Napoleon III, jackass.

No. Benito Mussolini was seen as the next Caesar.

IL DUCE!

I meant that he had his interests centered on France, whereas his uncle wanted to create a European empire.

>like their predecessors
Opps, this is supposed to be unlike.

Il Duce!