In the Uk, Napoleon is not necessarily regarded highly but for all the wrong reasons. Napoleon came close to changing completely 19th century Europe, and at one point appeared likely to impose liberte, egalite, fraternite on the western part of the sub-continent.
A brilliant, if possibly overrated, general he defeated nearly every other imposing general of the time, and would, if he'd had more luck, defeated Wellington and Blucher. Nevertheless, as a general, he was really only as good as his staff officers.
Everything Napoleon did effectively derived from the ideals of the Revolution. He embodied the Revolutions energy and was followed by the French people because of his own energy and the success it brought. He was seen as 'the Revolution on horseback'.
He effectively changed French society, imposing administrative changes and changes in how the law functioned, as well as re-structuring French education.
Those against him were the reactionary forces of Europe and his defeat allowed serfdom to continue, aristocratic rule to prosper and in many western countries the poor to continue to suffer.
Dear Jana,
Farid seemed to have his own agenda and certainly found it difficut to understand the nature of historical enquiry, which I confronted him over . He became abusive and deleted his comments, which for this question were largely unsuitable.
The first characteristic of Napoleon is that he was diligent to always be improving himself and acquiring knowledge that would help him in future tasks. As a young man, he was a vivacious reader, studying history, science and philosophy. He especially enjoyed the ancient classics, and modeled himself upon their heroes, like Caesar or Alexander the Great.
Later in life, when he was planning a military campaign, he would read books about the place in which he would be operating. Studying the country’s history, geography and culture made him better prepared for whatever he would encounter, and help him to avoid errors that previous generals had made.
He was also a very good interviewer. Although he was a proud man, he was not afraid to demonstrate his ignorance if the person he was speaking to could enlighten him. He would often grill someone with deep and perceptive questions, getting from them any information that would be useful. Even as commanding general, he would often personally interview captured prisoners, hoping to gain any information from them that he could.
Farid of course I agree with you concerning violence, and I have expressed it many times. There are tremendous issues with Napoleon's career, abandoning armies when it suited him for example.
Ok. I like you take zero tolerance on violence and like you I believe we need to mark out the Napoleon's and Ceasar's as regrettable anomolies, but still look at Son's answer.
Farid, you are quite right in your assessment but brutality was not necessarily the guiding principle. Empire building was often simply accidental, the British for example, before evolving into institutional forms.
Was the British Empire the most successful? It certainly was extensive but also lasted a very short period of time. And when its end came, it came rapidly. In fact it was at its most extensive after the First World War when it assumed control, sometimes as in Palestine as a protectorate, over areas of the Near East when the Ottoman Empire fell.I can certainly think of more successful ones, such as perhaps the Mughal in India, a Moslem state that, as with all Islamic conquests, combined religious conversion and war-its mark still evident in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Of course, these matters are debatable.
I refuse to accept concepts of good and evil, as people are not driven by conscious morality but by a number of equally powerful and discrete forces. The Abrahamic religions constructed a belief in the evil/weak/ wilful/disobedient nature of human beings subject to heavenly and priestly controls that placed all onus on human beings and none on the various monotheistic gods (YHWH, Father (Christian and a continuation of el), Allah (a continuation of el and An). The gods (their priests anyway) themselves constructed right and wrong, changing both when conditions changed.
I accept your views on the intellectual success of Britain, in the fashion you have presented it, but I also believe that other influences are now abroad that may weaken the affective accomplishments you mention. Also, Islam, foremost historically a conquest religion, has equally spread its unigue perspectives. There is unfortunately a chance that the future could be authoritative in nature, not liberal, with debate controlled.
The extreme location of Empires and conquest tropes is a given. The Sioux and Cheyanne for example were building empires in the USA plains as a consequence of the introduction of the horse by Spaniards and depopulation of the norther American continent by European introduced diseases. (Not evil here, only opportunity, technological change, and a warrior ethos).They were, it seems, immensely brutal too. They were stopped by the empire building of Europeans.
Empire building by European states can be viewed as a worldwide cultural phenomenon, driven by learning (voyages of discovery by Cook), trading by private companies in the Far East (East Indian Company), and simply the result of interaction between developed states throughout the world. This period of Empire building tends to be viewed as a single episode when in fact it was made up of a number, with different activities and behaviours in different localities. As a whole, it was largely resourced by events in the 16th century onwards in the Americas and later the lucrative slave trade.
Added to that, at first European armies failed against Asian armies-the first war fought by Britain in India against Indian states was a defeat for the British. The weakening of the Mughal state, fighting between Indian states, the taking of sides by French and British forces and the use of Indian states in a proxy war between Britain and France allowed Britain to gradually assume power. The onset of the Industrial Revoloution gave Britain a technological advantage it didn't have in the early 18th century, but still the only wars they actually won using mainly British forces were perhaps the Sikh war (although also something of a proxy war) and the Mutiny/or to Indians Rebellion in the 1850s (where many Indian forces were also used).
Farid, I doubt you really believe I'm an apologist for colonialism, so I'll let that one lie. Discussing a subject and interpreting it does not make me like it. My writings elsewhere insist on the view that the so-called Renaissance, and the Enlightenment need to be understood as global phenomenons.
I feel absolutely no guilt towards what my ancestors did, as hopefully you feel none towards what your's did. I do not I admit see the world in black and white terms.
Just one point, the American natives largely died out because of disease, not European violence. The American natives Europeans met were vastly different to their ancestors, who were more numerous and capable of organising large numbers within their considerable populations (Mound Peoples of Mississipi-and up to the Great Lakes). They would not have succombed so easily to Europeans.
An addition: Farid one of my jobs is to write history and to do that requires me to interpret past phenomena, which I hope I do. When I write things in here I always hope people will 1) understand my arguments, 2) understand the interpretive nature of my arguments. In some ways, I feel you have halted such processes by assuming that in both cases I have alternative agendas.
Napoleon Bonaparte’s rise to power is one of the great stories of European history. He was born the son of a minor noble on the island off the coast of Italy, yet in just a few decades he gained control of France and conquered most of Europe. He could do this because he had the skills and abilities required to seize favorable situations that he encountered and turn them to his own benefit. In his life, we can learn principles that are applicable to anyone, as well as dangerous traits common to many dictators in history who have abused their power.
Napoleon on campaign in France in 1814
1. Always Learning
The first characteristic of Napoleon is that he was diligent to always be improving himself and acquiring knowledge that would help him in future tasks. As a young man, he was a vivacious reader, studying history, science and philosophy. He especially enjoyed the ancient classics, and modeled himself upon their heroes, like Caesar or Alexander the Great.
Later in life, when he was planning a military campaign, he would read books about the place in which he would be operating. Studying the country’s history, geography and culture made him better prepared for whatever he would encounter, and help him to avoid errors that previous generals had made.
He was also a very good interviewer. Although he was a proud man, he was not afraid to demonstrate his ignorance if the person he was speaking to could enlighten him. He would often grill someone with deep and perceptive questions, getting from them any information that would be useful. Even as commanding general, he would often personally interview captured prisoners, hoping to gain any information from them that he could.
Battle of Valmy
2. Good General
Napoleon entered the French army at a time when quick advancement was possible. The French Revolution resulted in many royalist officers leaving the army, and in constant wars which gave the opportunity for young officers like Napoleon to advance through victory. Napoleon was very successful in his military campaigns, and that laid the foundation necessary for his political achievements. He fought 60 battles in his career, and lost only seven, mostly towards the end. He was talented both strategically and tactically. In campaign after campaign he defeated larger armies with a smaller force, through methods like moving boldly and quickly, defeating them in detail, cutting off their lines of retreat, and doing what his enemies least expected. He was undoubtedly a brilliant general, and many have counted him as the best general in world history.
Napoleon and the Sphinx
3. Efficient Organizer
Bonaparte was not just a great general, he was also good at logistics. One of his most famous maxims is that, “An army marches on its stomach.” If troops are not well equipped and well fed, they can not be expected to fight well. Napoleon was very skilled at logistics. He ensured that the preparations were in place to keep his troops fighting effectively. He wrote many letters just about shoes, to make sure that his army would be able to keep marching. He was also quite financially astute. Even when he was spending vast amounts of money on imperial palaces, from time to time he would review the accounts and refuse to pay bills that he thought were unreasonable. This logistical competence was necessary to win his victories.
Napoleon
4. Brilliance
One essential feature of Napoleon’s character was his brilliance. Not only was he very smart, he could also handle many topics at once. He could dictate letter after letter to his secretaries, on a wide variety of topics, often without even stopping to think. He could also compartmentalize his mind. Even in the midst of a very stressful campaign, he could put the present situation behind him and think with incredible clarity about another separate issue. This also allowed him to make the most of his time. Even in the midst of a battle, he could clear his mind of all the stress and seize a moment to take a fifteen minute nap, waking refreshed to continue to direct the battle. He had an immense capacity for work, sometimes working for several days with virtually no rest.
Napoleon had an immense memory for details. It is related that during the campaign of 1805, one of his commanders could not locate his division. As his aides began to search through their maps and papers to find the location, the emperor told it to them from memory, where it would be positioned during the next three days, along with the strength and status of each unit.
Good answer Mohannad but not entirely true. It was already destroyed by the CPS.
Farid, where disease is concerned (above) the evidence suggests a change in Native American numbers and culture-the result of decimation from the Spaniards arrival. There is evidence for large settlements in the Amazon, giving rise to El Dorado legends, that too disappeared after the Spaniards arrived.
But European genocide of Native Americans, yes, there is plenty of evidence for that? Look at Benjamin Franklin's autobiography. He asserts that the Native Americans should be supplied with alcohol to more easily divest them of their land.
But one of my points is that Europeans had the success they did because Native American urban organisations had been badly affected by disease. Remember, the Vikings made no headway when they arrived in North America. More Native American numbers, raised by centrally ordered societies might/must surely have made the difference and possibly limited European encroachments to the coast.
Farid the use of the term 'success' is not triumphalist but denotes outcome without referencing moral value of the outcome. We all know the encroaching groups had better weapons (here I would put, to some extent, but you would no doubt not understand I am speaking from knowledge not some perverse engagement with my ancestors, but history is not dependent on the obvious. I did not say the Spanish were not Europeans!
Farid, I do not understand why you appear unable to understand what I am writing and why, with continuous and honestly silly statements about burying the past. Do you not understand at all the processes of history? You appear to be projecting onto me ideas and positions I simply do not have, and I strongly object to being told what I should and shouldn't write.
Actually attempt to understand what I have written and not rewrite so purposelessly in your mind to fit some prior agenda on your background and past.
I strongly object to being told what to write and how to think. Grasp the nature of history please if you seem unable to grasp the nature of the question. Sorry, but your responses are daft, not serious.
Farid do not make these kind of accusations. Are you an historian? I think not. You have marvellously failed here to grasp the nature of history, imagining statements made about the past are personal ones. If I write about the stone age I do not have any personal commitment to the period. I am not that old.
Do some reading/find out about things instead of spouting complete nonsense based on equally complete ignorance. You say that diseases do not appear suddenly (black death anyone?), Karim they did not appear suddenly they were brought by Europeans to people in America. Do not answer questions in history when you cannot understand it.
By the way, I completely agree with you about Blair, but not quite sure about you intimation of me as a war criminal. Lastly, I thought you liked the British-anyway I'm half Irish.
Peter, just to check, do you imagine I was saying there was no genocide? I just saw your cryptic remark, and seemed to believe I was. This is far from the case, and no one can deny the genocide in USA, Australia and of course Tasmania, but nevertheless I think there is a mixiing of politics and history here, and perhaps when facts offend, stick to politics.
Peter, keep to the history-the facts-not political belief. All these events were appalling. What happened in Tasmania was as bad as what happened in Europe later. It was a time when people had certain ideas on other people.
Where the Americas are concerned, I stick to the evidence (I hope), and again if historians of the period are right, Europeans would not have had such a relatively easy time of killing off the tribes.
I take your points, but the disease factor occurred before Europeans arrived, according to many, so by the time they did arrive American native cultures were not as organised as they were before. Again, I point out that the Vikings failed, and, yes, they did not have weapons but they had mail.
The Iroqois were organised, living in agricultural communities and larger confederations. Perhaps, a hundred years before, they would not have fallen to the Europeans. Nevertheless, your points might be reasonable for South America.
Peter your points are very valid.
You have clearly given considerable thought to the matter. I think that maybe, just maybe, the events in South and Central America were vastly different to events in North America. There, no centralised group defended the region and the number of Europeans arriving was small-nor were they military men like the Conquistodors? Nevertheless, was Spain then powerful? Did their rise come as a result of gaining the Americas, the gold and other sources?
Give me a few days on this, Peter, but at present I feel your points are strong indeed-the writing of history, how it is presented, can be different from the actual events. Can you link your perceptions to the idea, based on paintings of events, that in Mexico the native armies, particularly the Thaxcala, lead the attacking armies with the Spanish in the rear, and that the Spanish tales of heroism were a little contrived.
How do you account for the disappearance of settlements in the Amazon discovered recently?
Peter, I can now see that I accepted the discussion point too easily although the disease theory explains the relative collapse of societies in the Americas not attacked by Europeans.
The Aztec collapse was I've always believed due to the Native armies not the Spaniards quite as much as they would claim-the Native armies took the opportunity of the Spaniard's appearance and perfidy regarding Montezuma to attack the Aztecs. Certainly, the Aztecs probably suffered plague when then besieged in Tenochtilan, but also came close to defeating the Spaniards when they changed tactics to killing opponents rather than capturing them.
My understanding is that it was then that plague attacked preventing the Spanish Native allies assuming control of any kind. In fact surely La Malinche, Cortez mistress who can be seen at the front of the Native troops-perhaps leading them-is still regarded as a traitor in some parts of Mexico.
Where the Conquistadors' story doesn't add up is in their dominance in battle, rather than as just shock troops. Better, to view them as opportunistic politicians rather than simply fighters.
Couldn't agree more, but what has survived is just a number of doubtful versions based upon European techincal superiority, fortitude, power and courage.
But its a story-a story of takeover and origins!
I see that this question was formulated by Stanley Wilkin, but many of you answered Farid. I do not see Farid's answer. Who is Farid?
I'm sure he deleted his answers. He did the same with a question I asked.
Dear Jana,
Farid seemed to have his own agenda and certainly found it difficut to understand the nature of historical enquiry, which I confronted him over . He became abusive and deleted his comments, which for this question were largely unsuitable.
I believe that this service is provided by the Researchgate platform so that we can collaborate in areas that are known and common to those who want to express their opinions. There is a mention:
”Questions matching your expertise”
Yes Jana,
Farid was always welcome, and still is, to learn like we all do.
I appreciate your answer, dear Stanley. We learn together and from each other.
To return to Napoleon as a subject of history not morality (although that issue should not be fogotten but referenced with understanding-why do we praise the violent, why do we overrate the skilled violent, which includes conquerors and prophets don't forget?):
I am interested in Napoleon's skill as a general, given that Austrian armies were beaten in the 1790s on a regular basis by less famous individuals and although he early did well in Italy (in fact surely no more than his peers?) he failed in Egypt.
His outstanding skill was perhaps as a politician.
To continue: Naopleon found himself in a meritocracy. Aristocratic generals had fled leaving behind those with military skills. Napoleon surrounded himself with these people, creating an extremely talented staff. Augereau, Massena, Berthier , Bernadotte, Ney, many from humble backgrounds. One of his generals was Dumas, the black father of the novelist, Alexander.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Philosophy Of Science
- Reasoning