Was Napoleon Positive or Negative for France Overall

[Okeefenokee]

Go down to the docks and fuck yourself with a broken boat oar.

Rude.

It was, and I acknowledged that it was wrong. I took it like a piss off, but it wasn't.

I know. I thought it was funny. Keep it in your quiver. You'll get another shot soon enough.

[Mercury]

Rude.

It was, and I acknowledged that it was wrong. I took it like a piss off, but it wasn't.

I know. I thought it was funny. Keep it in your quiver. You'll get another shot soon enough.

Gotcha. Still finding my way here.

[katarn]

In your opinion did he help France overall?

The Napoleonic Code provided a positive alternative to the arbitrariness of feudal laws, and served as a means for European civil culture to evolve toward its modern form.

He did get ~500,000 of his men killed in Russia, so an argument could easily be made that he had a net negative impact on France. If I had to pick positive or negative, right now, I would lean positive (in the long run).

What do you think?

I think considering the fallout of the Revolution and the following Committee and then Directory that Napoleon was a better alternative than the former, and socially he did a lot that goes mostly unnoticed. I think had he untied most of Europe like against Britain it would have been interesting. French Empire would be the only real balance to English hegemony. I think that is/was a good thing as well. And like I said I believe Napoleon military actions were overwhelmingly defensive in nature and many times he had no alternative.

AP history programs don't like explicitly telling you something was good or bad, but they heavily imply in many cases. If Napoleon did anything good socially, it wasn't worth mentioning. Apart from a mention of restructuring laws and fighting wars, Napoleon isn't fleshed out too much, but they do take great care to explain how he removed rights women gained during the Revolution.

[heydaralon]

Its quite possible Napoleon would have fared better against the Duke of Wellington if the coach had put his Uncle Rico in the fourth quarter. The man could throw a pigskin over them mountains. Imagine if he had hurled a whiff of grapeshot at the battle of Waterloo?

[Kill the King]

Maybe I'm naive but I would think a Frenchman would be proud to be in the lineage of Napoleon. Enough time has past where he is looked upon as a great general who almost conquered the world. Twice. Hitler doesn't really compare because the wounds are too still too fresh. Back in the day when there was a history podcast I remember Dan talking about the Khan's and his professor. I think it's a very similar situation.

[heydaralon]

Maybe I'm naive but I would think a Frenchman would be proud to be in the lineage of Napoleon. Enough time has past where he is looked upon as a great general who almost conquered the world. Twice. Hitler doesn't really compare because the wounds are too still too fresh. Back in the day when there was a history podcast I remember Dan talking about the Khan's and his professor. I think it's a very similar situation.

Conquerors are always interesting people. I'm not a Napoleon expert, and I'm a bit conflicted about his legacy. This is a short article that is in the same vein as Dan's Khan podcast. It discusses Napoleon and historical memory:


http://gwynnedyer.com/tag/napoleon-bonaparte/

[Ex-California]

The difference between Caesar and Napoleon and HItler was that Caesar actually won. He made Octavian his heir and Octavian is the one who came out on top and enabled the Empire to stop the Civil Wars eventually reach its greatest heights. Napoleon and Hitler flashed out and lost, and their nations ended up in a weakened state for years afterwards

[Kill the King]

Winning always helps. The Victor's write the history but I still respect Napoleon for what he accomplished. The same goes for Hannibal. Great men but they didn't succeed. If Napoleon had generals like Jebe or Subutai would he have conquered the world? For whatever reason there's a lot of luck involved.

[Kill the King]

Winning always helps. The Victor's write the history but I still respect Napoleon for what he accomplished. The same goes for Hannibal. Great men but they didn't succeed. If Napoleon had generals like Jebe or Subutai would he have conquered the world? For whatever reason there's a lot of luck involved.

[GloryofGreece]

Maybe I'm naive but I would think a Frenchman would be proud to be in the lineage of Napoleon. Enough time has past where he is looked upon as a great general who almost conquered the world. Twice. Hitler doesn't really compare because the wounds are too still too fresh. Back in the day when there was a history podcast I remember Dan talking about the Khan's and his professor. I think it's a very similar situation.

Conquerors are always interesting people. I'm not a Napoleon expert, and I'm a bit conflicted about his legacy. This is a short article that is in the same vein as Dan's Khan podcast. It discusses Napoleon and historical memory:


http://gwynnedyer.com/tag/napoleon-bonaparte/

Thank you.