6 ms·

Napoleon should probably be actively forgotten, there's better people in history worth remembering. He was just a tyrant that caused a lot of suffering and deat

Napoleon should probably be actively forgotten, there's better people in history worth remembering. He was just a tyrant that caused a lot of suffering and death.

lostlogin 5y ago
Is there a leader who is know for their military conquests that you couldn’t say the same about?
- apples_oranges 5y ago
  Sure, many generals who didn't start the wars they fought.
  - keiferski 5y ago
    This is a misunderstanding of the situation. Napoleon largely “started” his wars because the rest of monarchical Europe was conspiring to have him removed.
    - Foobar8568 5y ago
      Conspiring? Other monarchies basically went to war to stop the French revolution so before Napoleon was even known (Napoleon got known through his victory in the "siege de Toulon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Toulon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Toulon )
      - keiferski 5y ago
        Yes, of course I’m oversimplifying it. The greater point being that Napoleon didn’t start the series of wars as a conquerer, which is how he is often portrayed (especially in English language history.)
        nickik 5y ago
        The French revolutionary regime started the wars and literally expend in all direction and were absorbing country after county. Instead of negotiation an end to war they attempted to take much of Europe and Napoleon continued that. Peace was temporary and only as long as you followed what Napoleon wanted. Russia tried peace with Napoleon but they realized that Napoleon only accepted piece if he was in control and could dedicated all policies they should. Once they didn't he invaded.
goto11 5y ago
Shouldn't we forget all of history then? Which ruler have not caused suffering or death for somebody?
- apples_oranges 5y ago
  Maybe I phrased it badly. I think he's viewed too positively / heroically even, I think that's not warranted at all. And his actions should be re-evaluated. But I'm not a historian, just a guy who likes reading and I haven't read anything yet that justifies for example when a modern day French Presidents honors Napoleon.
  - asd4232 5y ago
    Yeah, it's one thing to question how historical figures are portrayed, and another to support actively erasing historical figures who did bad things by present day's moral standards. I think it's best to remember history as it is, no worship or mixing it with present-day politics needed. Learning from history can be useful, but actions of historical individuals should also be seen in context of the world they lived in.
  - Foobar8568 5y ago
    Read a bit about the French revolution, related wars or what Napoleon has done for France before spouting such non-sense.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    There is the Code Napoleon, parts of which still form the basis of law in Germany and France. That was pretty progressive. Napoleon also is one the most successful, "best", military leaders in history. Right up there with people like Alexander the Great. His military reforms more or less paved the way for modern militaries ever since. Historically, most of the Anti-French coalitions were led, and financed, by the British. So they are as much guilty of the Napoleonic Wars as Napoleon himself. Do yes, Napoleon definitely is on of history's greats. Definitely worth remembering. And he would be even more so if he was a true class a a-hole. These people definitely should never be forgotten.
asd4232 5y ago
Cherrypicking only parts of history you like to be remembered is something totalitarians have always enjoyed. It's always a bad idea if you believe in freedom, human rights and democracy, no exceptions.
throwaway59553 5y ago
He was one of the greatest men in History, and everyone should look up to him as an example.
MomoXenosaga 5y ago
Napoleon is Europe's Oda Nobunaga. A demon who changed Europe forever.
- holoduke 5y ago
  He is one of the key persons who managed to reduce the power of religious institutions. And thats a good thing. Religion created an exceptional cruel period in Europe for about 1300 years.
  - misiti3780 5y ago
    He also dismantled feudalism - that was pretty good for most Europeans - no?
    - nickik 5y ago
      He didn't actually. Feudalism had ended long before. Feudalism is usually consider for early to high middle ages, by the late middle ages and early modern period the social structure had already changed considerably.
      - misiti3780 5y ago
        "Napoleon extended French legislation dismantling feudal property relations to annexed territories" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230236738_8 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230236738_8 Seems like he ended it in some places - no ?
        nickik 5y ago
        The problem is that the world 'feudal' is very overloaded. There are some historians that basically refuse to use it outside of a very limited perspective. Other historians (mostly non-medieval historians) use it for basically everything from 700 AD to 1700 AD. Medieval historians are not very happy with this. The paper basically mentions this here: > First, by the eighteenth century feudalism was primarily (but not solely) a system of property law rather than a mode of production or a form of social domination. So basically their argument is that the type of property law changed under Napoleon. And that is probably fair (I need to read the whole paper). But I would say that 'ended feudalism'. Its probably a good thing, I would agree. I must admit I don't know enough about property relation in France. I would like to read this paper in more detail. I read far more about Russia and Britain, stemming form my dislike of France.

Napoleon should probably be actively forgotten, there's better people in history worth remembering. He was just a tyrant that caused a lot of suffering and death.

lostlogin 5y ago

Is there a leader who is know for their military conquests that you couldn’t say the same about?

apples_oranges 5y ago
Sure, many generals who didn't start the wars they fought.
- keiferski 5y ago
  This is a misunderstanding of the situation. Napoleon largely “started” his wars because the rest of monarchical Europe was conspiring to have him removed.
  - Foobar8568 5y ago
    Conspiring? Other monarchies basically went to war to stop the French revolution so before Napoleon was even known (Napoleon got known through his victory in the "siege de Toulon" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Toulon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Toulon )
    - keiferski 5y ago
      Yes, of course I’m oversimplifying it. The greater point being that Napoleon didn’t start the series of wars as a conquerer, which is how he is often portrayed (especially in English language history.)
      - nickik 5y ago
        The French revolutionary regime started the wars and literally expend in all direction and were absorbing country after county. Instead of negotiation an end to war they attempted to take much of Europe and Napoleon continued that. Peace was temporary and only as long as you followed what Napoleon wanted. Russia tried peace with Napoleon but they realized that Napoleon only accepted piece if he was in control and could dedicated all policies they should. Once they didn't he invaded.

goto11 5y ago

Shouldn't we forget all of history then? Which ruler have not caused suffering or death for somebody?

apples_oranges 5y ago
Maybe I phrased it badly. I think he's viewed too positively / heroically even, I think that's not warranted at all. And his actions should be re-evaluated. But I'm not a historian, just a guy who likes reading and I haven't read anything yet that justifies for example when a modern day French Presidents honors Napoleon.
- asd4232 5y ago
  Yeah, it's one thing to question how historical figures are portrayed, and another to support actively erasing historical figures who did bad things by present day's moral standards. I think it's best to remember history as it is, no worship or mixing it with present-day politics needed. Learning from history can be useful, but actions of historical individuals should also be seen in context of the world they lived in.
- Foobar8568 5y ago
  Read a bit about the French revolution, related wars or what Napoleon has done for France before spouting such non-sense.
- hef19898 5y ago
  There is the Code Napoleon, parts of which still form the basis of law in Germany and France. That was pretty progressive. Napoleon also is one the most successful, "best", military leaders in history. Right up there with people like Alexander the Great. His military reforms more or less paved the way for modern militaries ever since. Historically, most of the Anti-French coalitions were led, and financed, by the British. So they are as much guilty of the Napoleonic Wars as Napoleon himself. Do yes, Napoleon definitely is on of history's greats. Definitely worth remembering. And he would be even more so if he was a true class a a-hole. These people definitely should never be forgotten.

asd4232 5y ago

Cherrypicking only parts of history you like to be remembered is something totalitarians have always enjoyed. It's always a bad idea if you believe in freedom, human rights and democracy, no exceptions.

throwaway59553 5y ago

He was one of the greatest men in History, and everyone should look up to him as an example.

MomoXenosaga 5y ago

Napoleon is Europe's Oda Nobunaga. A demon who changed Europe forever.

holoduke 5y ago
He is one of the key persons who managed to reduce the power of religious institutions. And thats a good thing. Religion created an exceptional cruel period in Europe for about 1300 years.
- misiti3780 5y ago
  He also dismantled feudalism - that was pretty good for most Europeans - no?
  - nickik 5y ago
    He didn't actually. Feudalism had ended long before. Feudalism is usually consider for early to high middle ages, by the late middle ages and early modern period the social structure had already changed considerably.
    - misiti3780 5y ago
      "Napoleon extended French legislation dismantling feudal property relations to annexed territories" https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230236738_8 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230236738_8 Seems like he ended it in some places - no ?
      - nickik 5y ago
        The problem is that the world 'feudal' is very overloaded. There are some historians that basically refuse to use it outside of a very limited perspective. Other historians (mostly non-medieval historians) use it for basically everything from 700 AD to 1700 AD. Medieval historians are not very happy with this. The paper basically mentions this here: > First, by the eighteenth century feudalism was primarily (but not solely) a system of property law rather than a mode of production or a form of social domination. So basically their argument is that the type of property law changed under Napoleon. And that is probably fair (I need to read the whole paper). But I would say that 'ended feudalism'. Its probably a good thing, I would agree. I must admit I don't know enough about property relation in France. I would like to read this paper in more detail. I read far more about Russia and Britain, stemming form my dislike of France.