-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
What about Beethoven holding him Buonaparte as the savior of Europe, then cursing his name when his true nature was revealed?
Hitler had autobahns and scientific research skyrocketed - literally. Strong rulers get things done. It does not make them moral.
if napoleon bonaparte had been a reasonable man and abdicated as consul after some time without trying to influence his sucessor then I'd be speaking french right now
instead he tried to conquer the world and I'm still speaking a similar language as my ancestors did, thanks monsieur nappy!
instead he tried to conquer the world and I'm still speaking a similar language as my ancestors did, thanks monsieur nappy!
Napoleon on the other hand is the father of the Swiss Franc, so he also has a lasting legacy.
"Liberation of Poland" cancels any other immorality
- 2
Hitler killed science and research by expelling the Jews from all university positions and imprisoning liberals, he did not "skyrocket" it. The only thing that skyrocketed was technical applications i.e. weapons and the literally sky rocketing machines of Werner von Braun.
- 3
Von Braun is exactly what ‘literally skyrocket’ meant. Thanks for getting the allusion.
Regarding Hitler’s Jewish policies, feel free to elaborate; not sure I know that part of the story.
Last edited:
Reminder to the two latest posters that this thread is about Napoléon, not Hitler. Elaborate on Hitler elsewhere. Thank you for not bringing him into this thread, especially not with these sort of controversial statements when you can open your own billionth thread about Hitler separately to ask your questions there.
Awww you're no fun, Loup.
As for Napoleone Buonaparte, it's good the world had him, and good that it was rid of him not too long afterwards. He brought welcome change into Europe.
Hitler and Napoleon are frequently the subject of compare and contrast because of the manner in which their career arcs soaked the continent in blood and required free peoples to band together to suppress each of them for the sake of the planet - if you want to whitewash that out of the conversation, it is on you and not us.
Last edited:
Please explain to me, without referring to the Third Reich, Weimar Germany, WW2 or anything remotely related to Nazism and Hitler, how I, by being the most critical poster towards Napoléon in this entire thread, "whitewashed" anything out of the conversation. Make an argument about Napoléon and the events that relate to the period and I will gladly answer it. By the way, I agree that listing random minor innovations when discussing a dictator who was involved in wars with a significant death toll is absolutely out of proportion. You can't argue away the reintroduction of slavery by saying Napoléon instated the Code civil (already very problematic text in itself). Then again I'm not entirely convinced we should see things from a good or bad perspective, although slavery and regression in women rights is bad and should not be minimised, especially since they can be criticised in light of the debates at the time.
Last edited:
- 1
I am merely explaining the rationale behind my comment. I will respect your wish and drop it. See you in another thread.
Last edited:
- 1
Not just Europe. It's been mentioned before, but Napoleon was the main reason for the collapse of the Spanish and Portuguese empires in Latin America
edit: his invasion of egypt and the defeat of the mamluks also led muhammad ali to egypt and helped him seize power
- 1
The invasion of Egypt was a part of the "new colonisation". Furthermore, Napoléon did certainly not aim to help Muhammad Ali to get into power, even if he was indeed hostile to the Mamluks, especially given that Ali was sent to fight against Bonaparte. So that is a misleading association.
Last edited:
I may not have expressed myself clearly. I did not mean to say that Napoleon wanted to help Ali, only that without the French invasion he wouldn't have taken over
Fair enough, I wanted to point out that if the "new colonisation" had worked out in Egypt Ali wouldn't have taken over. So it is only when the French colonisation and domination of Egypt failed that Ali could become the actor he was. With this in mind I have a hard time giving Bonaparte agency here, because while being hostile to the Mamluks that hostility was in part caricature and did not correspond to the reality of their rule in Egypt. Furthermore the rule Bonaparte attempted to install, while attempting to associate locals and adapt to the situation, was based upon military victory and conquest, meaning it is difficult to see in what way that would have been much better than existing Mamluk government.
Not all of our most noteworthy achievements are deliberate.
Anyways, I find it hard not to feel some appreciation for Nappy, rising from a minor noble in a backwater italian island to most powerful man in the world, and even symbol of France. Not a good man, but an impressive one all the same.
- 1
The people banding together against Nappy weren't actually free. None of his enemies were democracies, most were monarchies and only one or two had an element of representation for the richer classes in society. Of course Napoleon wasn't exactly a champion of freedom either, he only paid lip service to this idea and in practice replaced satellite republics with monarchies ruled by his family. But his enemies for the most part had been fighting France before Napoleon took over, trying to suppress this dangerous idea of popular sovereignty. The victors in 1815 not only ended the experiment in France but also decided not to restore the republics in the Netherlands, Genoa and Venice. The only benefit to the planet in all this lies therein that the ideals of the revolution failed to die when the republic did.
- 2
Eloquent if nothing else.
To me it is the inability to restrain the power unleashed by emotion triumphing over reason. Napoleon adores and lauds Rousseau, who looks at Corsica and says something great is coming from there soon. Yet when Napoleon can aspire to the Grand Sovereign role and bestow peace and justice for all, instead he chooses to be ashamed of his youthful ideals and girded his loins for everlasting war. Perhaps some ideals look shiny and bright on the outside but are toxic nonetheless.