6 ms·

Napoleon Had His Own American Dream

40 points by Vigier 11y ago

pluma 11y ago
The title's wording first reminded me of Last Week Tonight's segment called "Other Countries' Presidents of the United States of America" (playing a joke on the perceived ignorance of Americans about the rest of the world). Glad to see the title is actually correct.
exelius 11y ago
This makes absolute sense -- Napoleon's conquest of Europe wasn't so much out of disdain for the other countries in Europe as much as it was out of disdain for their aristocracies. America had an aristocracy itself, to be sure, but it was more of a self-made meritocracy than Europe since wealthy American families had only had a generation or two to accumulate wealth. So it only seems natural that he would want to live in a place without a noble caste. I think the British were nervous about Napoleon setting up shop in America and building a war machine that he would use to dismantle the British Empire. Though honestly, I don't think Americans would have listened to him: his pitch to Europeans was basically that he would give them freedom from the yoke of the nobility. He wasn't offering anything that Americans didn't have already. Many Americans fled Europe and its problems for a reason, and at the time the US had very little interest in getting dragged in to the wars of continental Europe.
- DominikR 11y ago
  So he was really just trying to build democracy and meritocracy, but the primitive population didn't get his "pitch"? I think I've already heard something similar a million dead Iraqis ago.
- Htsthbjig 11y ago
  Talking about meritocracy and the US sounds strange to me. If we agree with use the term "meritocracy" it should be noted the distinction in the meaning with today's. Today merit means working and generating value for others. In the past, specially in the US it meant killing other people and stealing what they had. "I think the British were nervous about Napoleon setting up shop in America and building a war machine that he would use to dismantle the British Empire." The British were not nervous. They knew that Napoleon could not be trusted if left alive, because he could go back to France in order to take the power, like he actually did. "his pitch to Europeans was basically that he would give them freedom from the yoke of the nobility." While proclaiming himself emperor and putting all his family in charge as the new nobility, including his son as his heir ...
  - exelius 11y ago
    > Talking about meritocracy and the US sounds strange to me. If we agree with use the term "meritocracy" it should be noted the distinction in the meaning with today's. > Today merit means working and generating value for others. In the past, specially in the US it meant killing other people and stealing what they had. Right, and I don't mean to claim that the US was equitable by any means. But in the US, if you had money, that money gave you a certain amount of power over your own destiny. In Europe, being wealthy was not enough; you had to be born into the right family, or be wealthy enough to marry the daughter of a lesser noble family that had fallen on hard times so that maybe your children would have access to some form of power. But there was no social mobility; for the most part, you would die in the same social station you were born into. > The British were not nervous. They knew that Napoleon could not be trusted if left alive, because he could go back to France in order to take the power, like he actually did. Yeah, this much is true. But IMO Napoleon gets too much credit -- these ideas had been stewing in the populace since the beginning of the Reformation, and they needed to come to a head before the Industrial Revolution could really take off. The British never really addressed this underlying issue either before or after deposing Napoleon, and IMO this led to a century of war in Europe culminating in WW2 -- where the ghosts of the old kingdoms of Europe were finally laid to rest. > While proclaiming himself emperor and putting all his family in charge as the new nobility, including his son as his heir ... Yeah, there is no doubt that he was a dictator. I would argue that he couldn't bring law and order to France without declaring himself Emperor, simply because European political culture was structured around a single ruler. He was able to use his simple origins to build a cult of personality around himself. He saw himself as a self-made man -- and he believed he would be a better emperor because he seized the position for himself. While he predates Nietzsche, he is the perfect embodiment of the "ubermensch" that Nietzsche espouses in "The Will to Power". His goal may have been to merely "reset" the European monarchy with men of quality who rose to power through their own abilities. There is no doubt he did this within his military officer corps. The main key to his success in Europe was that his officers were smart, motivated and well-trained -- which he ensured by promoting men based off their actions rather than their heritage. His officers (and their men) were literally fighting for a better life for themselves and their families; which motivates a little better than fighting for king and country. But there's little doubt that the core of his motivation in conquering Europe was to destroy the peerage system as it existed in Europe at the time.
- vacri 11y ago
  However, being in America means he still has open access to lines of communication and can build up support back home. Being on St Helens means that only a couple of British ships dock per year - a lot harder to be the spider at the centre of the web.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
DominikR 11y ago
Yes, he had his American Dream. Conquering Europe and eventually Russia. Went in with 600.000 men and returned with 26.000. By the way it's funny how western media writes fluff pieces about mass murdering barbarians like Napoleon who were as popular as Adolf Hitler back then and especially in the aftermath for many decades. I guess we'll see in 50 years from now articles about the unfulfilled American Dream of Adolf Hitler and everybody in the West will be clapping.
- _petronius 11y ago
  Napoleon was a far more complex figure than you give him credit for, and reducto ad Hitleram is a very poor rhetorical tactic anyway. While I wouldn't hold him up as some kind of perfect hero, his legacy in a lot of parts of Europe, from east to west, was one of a progressive reformer who brought a powerful civil law code with him[0]. [0]: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n24/edward-luttwak/a-damned-nice-thing http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n24/edward-luttwak/a-damned-nice-th...
- DonPellegrino 11y ago
  Napoleon was absolutely not comparable to Hitler in terms of popularity. Your assumption is a classic historical question that many people have asked themselves since WWII. It has been debunked over and over.
- vacri 11y ago
  barbarians like Napoleon Barbarians don't usually leave a lasting legacy of significant law reform...
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
> diminutive Corsican He wasn't short at all. His height was about 1.68m - above average at the time.

40 points by Vigier 11y ago

pluma 11y ago

The title's wording first reminded me of Last Week Tonight's segment called "Other Countries' Presidents of the United States of America" (playing a joke on the perceived ignorance of Americans about the rest of the world). Glad to see the title is actually correct.

exelius 11y ago

This makes absolute sense -- Napoleon's conquest of Europe wasn't so much out of disdain for the other countries in Europe as much as it was out of disdain for their aristocracies. America had an aristocracy itself, to be sure, but it was more of a self-made meritocracy than Europe since wealthy American families had only had a generation or two to accumulate wealth. So it only seems natural that he would want to live in a place without a noble caste. I think the British were nervous about Napoleon setting up shop in America and building a war machine that he would use to dismantle the British Empire. Though honestly, I don't think Americans would have listened to him: his pitch to Europeans was basically that he would give them freedom from the yoke of the nobility. He wasn't offering anything that Americans didn't have already. Many Americans fled Europe and its problems for a reason, and at the time the US had very little interest in getting dragged in to the wars of continental Europe.

DominikR 11y ago
So he was really just trying to build democracy and meritocracy, but the primitive population didn't get his "pitch"? I think I've already heard something similar a million dead Iraqis ago.
Htsthbjig 11y ago
Talking about meritocracy and the US sounds strange to me. If we agree with use the term "meritocracy" it should be noted the distinction in the meaning with today's. Today merit means working and generating value for others. In the past, specially in the US it meant killing other people and stealing what they had. "I think the British were nervous about Napoleon setting up shop in America and building a war machine that he would use to dismantle the British Empire." The British were not nervous. They knew that Napoleon could not be trusted if left alive, because he could go back to France in order to take the power, like he actually did. "his pitch to Europeans was basically that he would give them freedom from the yoke of the nobility." While proclaiming himself emperor and putting all his family in charge as the new nobility, including his son as his heir ...
- exelius 11y ago
  > Talking about meritocracy and the US sounds strange to me. If we agree with use the term "meritocracy" it should be noted the distinction in the meaning with today's. > Today merit means working and generating value for others. In the past, specially in the US it meant killing other people and stealing what they had. Right, and I don't mean to claim that the US was equitable by any means. But in the US, if you had money, that money gave you a certain amount of power over your own destiny. In Europe, being wealthy was not enough; you had to be born into the right family, or be wealthy enough to marry the daughter of a lesser noble family that had fallen on hard times so that maybe your children would have access to some form of power. But there was no social mobility; for the most part, you would die in the same social station you were born into. > The British were not nervous. They knew that Napoleon could not be trusted if left alive, because he could go back to France in order to take the power, like he actually did. Yeah, this much is true. But IMO Napoleon gets too much credit -- these ideas had been stewing in the populace since the beginning of the Reformation, and they needed to come to a head before the Industrial Revolution could really take off. The British never really addressed this underlying issue either before or after deposing Napoleon, and IMO this led to a century of war in Europe culminating in WW2 -- where the ghosts of the old kingdoms of Europe were finally laid to rest. > While proclaiming himself emperor and putting all his family in charge as the new nobility, including his son as his heir ... Yeah, there is no doubt that he was a dictator. I would argue that he couldn't bring law and order to France without declaring himself Emperor, simply because European political culture was structured around a single ruler. He was able to use his simple origins to build a cult of personality around himself. He saw himself as a self-made man -- and he believed he would be a better emperor because he seized the position for himself. While he predates Nietzsche, he is the perfect embodiment of the "ubermensch" that Nietzsche espouses in "The Will to Power". His goal may have been to merely "reset" the European monarchy with men of quality who rose to power through their own abilities. There is no doubt he did this within his military officer corps. The main key to his success in Europe was that his officers were smart, motivated and well-trained -- which he ensured by promoting men based off their actions rather than their heritage. His officers (and their men) were literally fighting for a better life for themselves and their families; which motivates a little better than fighting for king and country. But there's little doubt that the core of his motivation in conquering Europe was to destroy the peerage system as it existed in Europe at the time.
vacri 11y ago
However, being in America means he still has open access to lines of communication and can build up support back home. Being on St Helens means that only a couple of British ships dock per year - a lot harder to be the spider at the centre of the web.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

DominikR 11y ago

Yes, he had his American Dream. Conquering Europe and eventually Russia. Went in with 600.000 men and returned with 26.000. By the way it's funny how western media writes fluff pieces about mass murdering barbarians like Napoleon who were as popular as Adolf Hitler back then and especially in the aftermath for many decades. I guess we'll see in 50 years from now articles about the unfulfilled American Dream of Adolf Hitler and everybody in the West will be clapping.

_petronius 11y ago
Napoleon was a far more complex figure than you give him credit for, and reducto ad Hitleram is a very poor rhetorical tactic anyway. While I wouldn't hold him up as some kind of perfect hero, his legacy in a lot of parts of Europe, from east to west, was one of a progressive reformer who brought a powerful civil law code with him[0]. [0]: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n24/edward-luttwak/a-damned-nice-thing http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n24/edward-luttwak/a-damned-nice-th...
DonPellegrino 11y ago
Napoleon was absolutely not comparable to Hitler in terms of popularity. Your assumption is a classic historical question that many people have asked themselves since WWII. It has been debunked over and over.
vacri 11y ago
barbarians like Napoleon Barbarians don't usually leave a lasting legacy of significant law reform...

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

> diminutive Corsican He wasn't short at all. His height was about 1.68m - above average at the time.