Why do people admire Napoleon

t. Bing Bongston

>evil dictator
Yeah, he was so evil he freed the serfs and brought basic rights and education. He even made our language the official language along with German and French and even formed the first university which was literally shut down by Austrians later on.

So evil!

Exactly. He emancipated the Jews which enabled them to leech off and take over the European economy through usury. He was Jewish himself also. His Paternal haplogroup was E1b1b1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_E-M215_(Y-DNA)

Why the fuck do you say "our" as if anyone knows what shit country you come from?

Is it just say you can get a (you) from someone inquiring about something you should have put within your post?
Are you that pathetically desperate for a reply?

The reason I didn't put it in is because its irrelevant, you fucking retard, and would only draw unnecessary attention.

t.eternal anglo

Because he was much less of a vilain than the reactionnary tyrants who opposed him (Russian Tsar, Prussian King, Austrian Emperor, British King...)

He fought against ultra reactionnary monarchies that tried to crush the republican ideals of the revolution, but he's the bad guy.

FUCK OF LINDY

The Stalins, the Pol Pots and the Maos of his time were the revolutionaries : look up the Vendean Genocide, the drownings at Nantes, the September massacres, the beheadings... In light of all of this, Napoleon was a moderate : he sought to restore order within the country while preserving the acquired freedoms achieved by the Revolution. Invading all of Europe was probably a bad thing to do, but in light of how bloodthirsty the People was at the time, he appears to me as the lesser of evils. His regime was strong because of the constrains of War, but it wasn't totalitarian, and it wasn't more repressive than Tsarist Russia or Imperial Austro-Hungary. The question is : why do other emperors get a pass ?

>The question is : why do other emperors get a pass ?
Because he was the enemy of the established European royal houses and they did everything to paint him in a bad light regardless if true or not, especially the British.

He was essentially the communist of his era disrupting the social order in Europe.

>The question is : why do other emperors get a pass ?

Because of Hitler, normies tend to asscoiate "tyrant" with "invading places"
I once asked my mother who sees Napoleon as a tyrant if she thought the same of Louis XIV (who was actually thousands times more totalitarian than Nappy) and she tell me "No, he didnt invade other countries" (Hell yeah he did, and unlike Nappy he did out of pure greed)

I wonder who could be behind this post

> He killed relatively few civilians compared to those other dictators, and for the most part (although certainly not entirely) his regime was not known for cruelty
W-what?
Oh, they're not civilians if you conscript them into your army and it's not your fault because you're waging a defensive war... east of the Neman.
And you never gassed Haitians, betrayed the revolution or stubbornly prolonged a war that everyone knew was lost.
Comparing him Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao is a bit anachronistic, if not aggressive and only children believe in evil dictators

>His contemporaries were in awe of him in a way that the other dictators' contemporaries were not in awe of them
If you say so, he had a few notable admirers and a predictable amount of sycophants but for a lot of his career he was literally the subject of derision in PARIS. Even his wife wasn't in awe of him

He cemented several social gains from the revolution. Sacrifices and compromises were made, surely, but this is real life. If he hadn't blodied his hands, the people would have reverted to the status quo ante, under total aristocratic supremacy, without *something* to show for it.

He didn't just spread liberal, republican and democratic principles. He made France a nation. Before then there were dozens of languages and measurement systems, and people were held to loyalty to one aristocratic family rather than to their shared history, culture or a state of their own. He standardized a much of the legal codes and sciences.

To deny that Napoleon was admired by his contemporaries would require you to then provide an alternate explanation as to why he is so admired nowadays.

Most accounts of Napoleon by his enemies were very flattering. Do remember that they even offered him to remain as emperor of France, and even when he was defeated, he was given all of Corsica for himself. And the support of Napoleonic veterans of the second french revolution was important to it's success.

Robert E Lee and Hitler are admired nowadays (probably both moreso than Napoleon), I don't need to explain why Napoleon is admire now, like the two aforementioned he has some relevance for military historians especially but is mainly some embarrassingly romanticized lost cause figure.

Too many people aren't terribly interested in who he actually was, they know a few things and construct fantasies around those points, usually his admirers are projecting and love to pretend napoleon was just like them, it's pathetic just bite the bullet and write shit-tier pulp "historical"-fiction like Phillipa Gregory or someone, chirst.

>Most accounts of Napoleon by his enemies were very flattering
No they weren't.

>Do remember that they even offered him to remain as emperor of France, and even when he was defeated, he was given all of Corsica for himself.
No they disinherited his sickly son, forced him to abdicate completely and gave him the tiny island of Elba, not Corsica, so as to not perpetuate the precedent where noble leaders could be ignominiously executed. Even this was considered too magnanimous by many coalition leaders.
He, after having the audacity to accuse his adversaries and allies alike of perfidy and treachery fled Elba, to surrender again and become a prisoner in some shitty moldy rat infested house on a windswept rock in the middle of the Atlantic.
Shocking, someone who idolizes Napoleon knows fuck all about him.

The Bonapartists existed because Napoleon was a slightly better than ruler than the chaos and/or obscenely bourgeois incompetent monarchs he succeeded. He's not the messiah and he killed so many Frenchmen that by the time of his final surrender near every boy in France was a "veteran".

Robert E Lee and Hittler are admired for ideological reasons, the majority of people who admire Napoleon are on the completely opposite end of the ideological line from him.

>No they weren't.

They all praised him as a military genius, and his reforms were very appreciated by the common people. The Napoleonic code of law makes up the bedrock of all modern western democracies, and it was the beginning of the end for totalitarian monarchies in Europe. The fact that Napoleon conquered most of continental Europe and put these reforms in place is probably the sole reason the modern world is the way it is. Whether you think that's a good or a bad thing is a different matter entirely.

>No they disinherited his sickly son, forced him to abdicate completely and gave him the tiny island of Elba, not Corsica,

My bad on the name of the island. Homewer even tho what you say is truth, that happen afterwards, he was offered the title of emperor. His son was disinherited only when things started to go really badly for him, and mainly because the Coalition was trying to restore the rightful heir to the throne.
And even then, the house of Bonaparte was recognized later on, his grandson would go on to rule France and another one of his relatives would go on to rule Mexico for a little bit, not to mention their genes got into the Hapsburg bloodline, for as little as that amounts nowadays.

...

mass murderer

He was beloved as early as 1796~ due to his succeses prior in Paris, Toulon and the unnexpected victory in Italy he was orchestrating. Before that he was hated for being a Corsican peasant and later on he would still be revered by many especially in the 1805 campaign but this support would sometimes falter or grow back. It fell during the 1812-13 years because of his costly wars in Russia and the German States but grew back in 1815 when he came back from Elba.

In sacred Saragossa.
The practis'd tools of grasping power
Around her walls in legions lour,
Walls little fit in trying hour
To profit Saragossa.

But native valour, noble pride,
Arrange her heroes side by side,
A rampart that defies the tide,
Which threatens Saragossa.

Each house a fortress to defend,
Father and Son refuse to bend,
And sights are seen which hearts might rend,
In struggling Saragossa.

Not so with thee, thou pride of Spain!
Carnage and ruin spread in vain;
Still Sons of Arragon remain
To fight for Saragossa.

In house by house, in street by street,
The Franks a brave resistance meet;
Hopeless and baffled they retreat—
Huzza! for Saragossa.

Again returns Napoleon's horde
With all the horrors of the sword,
The Thunder-cloud, with havoc stor'd,
Hangs over Saragossa.

Arragonese! so brave, so true,
If ever branch of laurel grew,
That branch should form a wreath for you,
Who fought in Saragossa.

Again to vast exertion call'd,
By shot, shell, and explosion gall'd,
Firm stood thy Sons and unappall'd,
Unequall'd Saragossa!

Though wasting flames around thee curl'd,
Thou bursting mines to ruin hurled,
Defiance still her flag unfurled,
In gallant Saragossa.

O'erwhelm'd by numbers and o'ercome,
No hand to parley beat the drum,
Still true at heart, sullen and dumb,
Fell, glorious, Saragossa.

oops meant for

Well, can't make a tortilla without breaking a few eggs ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao

These guys are all relatively contemporary, there's still plenty of people alive who witnessed their rule. Give it a few hundred years like Napoleon and they'll all have their fair share of admirers.

they already do

False analogy. Napoleon had loads of admirers throughout Europe. Even his ennemies admired him to some extent (such as Alexander of Russia). Can any of the people you listed claim to have been admired by their ennemies? Were any of their accomplishments hailed like the code civil was?

Napoleon may have his flaws, but seldom would you find people painting him in the light of a bloodthirsty tyrant after his fall. Best example is still the fact his nephew came to absolute power 30 odd years after his death.

Where do you get the idea that those guys are more admired than Napoleon?

Most people don't really care that much about the American Civil War because, this may shock you, most people don't care that much about the history of your country.

Being associated with Hitler is toxic for your image, like, 90% of the time.

Napoleon is recognized as the guy that spread through Europe the values that we base our politics on today.

1-5.4 kill ratio

No you're right, it's not exactly the same. All I meant was that given enough time people may come to view 20th century dictators more objectively as important historical figures (like Napoleon) instead of the avatars of evil they are today.

Guessing Croatia or Slovenia.

>Most people don't really care that much about the American Civil War because, this may shock you, most people don't care that much about the history of your country.
You're full of shit because, this may shock you, I'm not American.
People care more about American history than French history because basically since independence it's been more consequential.
Though you might hate it, I'd bet Robert E Lee and certainly Hitler would have greater name recognition more or less anywhere outside of France and more than that, most people would know more about them.
>Being associated with Hitler is toxic for your image, like, 90% of the time.
Not as embarrassing as being "associated" with Napoleon.
>Napoleon is recognized as the guy that spread through Europe the values that we base our politics on today.
kek, he's barely recognized.
The way people go on, you'd think he single highhandedly created some perfectly coherent civic legal code.
The Napoleonic code was shit and the countries who consulted it in the construction of their legal system, or had it forced upon them are not known for their stability.

Fucking Swiss war criminals!
When will they pay for this?

>after all the Prussian were recognized as the prime martial power in the continent
They werent. Even the austrian military was stronger. Sure, prussia was "an army with a state", but they were a Small army and a smaller state.

>kek, he's barely recognized
>how to spot the retarded: 101

You're fucking retarded.
Napoleon is teached in every European school.
Almost no one in Europe will recognize the name of Robert E. Lee outside of the UK.

they admire his military prowess, which far exceeds any of those you listed.

Powerful argument.
>Napoleon is teached in every European school.
>Napoleon is teached
>teached

The same people who thought Napoleon was offered Corsica are calling me retarded

Quality posts.

>W-what?
>Oh, they're not civilians if you conscript them into your army and it's not your fault because you're waging a defensive war... east of the Neman.
I'm not a fan of Napoleon or trying to defend him. I'm just saying he killed relatively few civilians, in relatively uncruel ways, compared to people like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. Emphasis on relatively. I agree with you that if you conscript people and compel your enemies to conscript their people, you are to some degree responsible for those deaths and that it is cruel. But again... I'm talking relative. In the absolute sense yes, he caused a lot of suffering.

>the usa came late to the abolition party, but he thinks we're supposed to remember this one loser on the war they had about it
>but somehow he thinks we aren't taught about the guy that invaded just about half of europe, introducing the metric system and the civil code their later laws would be based on
What backwater where you born at?

>Oh, they're not civilians if you conscript them into your army and it's not your fault because you're waging a defensive war... east of the Neman.

lol what a pussy this guy is
going to war is not the same as being sent to a camp and worked to death

as for the gassing, i'm going to have to demand proof. wikipedia is showing it's unclear at best.
what's more, these are rebels at war with other frenchmen.
regardless of their motives, you do not nearly have the same situation as modern dictatorial brutality.

.

>they're not civilians if you conscript them into your army and it's not your fault because you're waging a defensive war... east of the Neman.
They're not, in fact. And what, should you stop your defensive war the second you're winning? "oh no, we destroyed them but they went back over the rhine, time to pack up boys. Let's wait for the next time."

>And you never gassed Haitians
no.
>betrayed the revolution
Napoléon saved what was won during the revolution and stabilized the entire country politically AND economically.
>or stubbornly prolonged a war that everyone knew was lost.
You realize if people fought for him, not everyone agreed it was lost, right?
Just read about the six days campaign. You could even argue he destroyed Blüchers army TOO hard.

>If you say so, he had a few notable admirers and a predictable amount of sycophants but for a lot of his career he was literally the subject of derision in PARIS. Even his wife wasn't in awe of him
Sure, if you exclude the entirety of the french population and army. The retarded nobles in Paris would never have liked him, because they're retarded nobles.

>Even his wife wasn't in awe of him
Now you're just being facetious.