NAPOLEON BONAPARTE - Greatest European who ever lived?

[Ouistreham]

I always find it strange how the French admire Napoleon so much

Do they? You probably haven't yet noticed that there's not a single Rue Napoléon, Avenue Napoléon, Place Napoléon in Paris.

what did Napoleon actually achieve though?

Well... He only set the foundations for all modern legal systems and State organisations.

The paradox is that he created the technical conditions for modern democracy, but as far as he's concerned he notoriously preferred to rule as en enlightened despot, following his role-model Frederic II of Prussia.

'Greatest European' should not go to a megalomaniac whose achievements centred on lots of people dying for his own ego

Re-read your history. From the day Napoleon seized power, he NEVER started a war. All his military campaigns were only counter-offensives.
The British are responsible for the millions of European soldiers who died in those wars.
Only to re-establish outdated and unsustainable old-style tyrannies.

[Blondie]

Napoleon created the liberal nationalism and i like it, but his foreign policy was terrible.

My top 10 list:

Constantine the Great
Charles Martel
Aristotle
Mozart
Napoleon
Leonardo da Vinci
Adolf Hitler
Karl Marx
Isaac Newton
Voltaire

But there are many other genius who influenced Europe in positive (or negative) way.

[Ülev]

my top begins with Petko Voyvoda

Petko Kirkov Кaloyanov Петко Кирков Калоянов (Каракирков, Киряков), better known as Captain Petko Voyvoda (Капитан Петко Войвода) (5 December 1844–7 February 1900) was a 19th-century Bulgarian hajduk leader and freedom fighter who dedicated his life to the liberation of Bulgaria (and, particularly, the region of Thrace).

Petko was born in the Bulgarian village of Dogan Hisar, today Aisymi (Evros regional unit, Greece). He married a Greek lady from Maronia in 1860. When a group of Turkish brigands attacked his wife, he fought and killed them all, including the leader of the bashibuzuks, Mehmed Kesedji Bey.

Beginning in 1861 Petko began fighting against the Ottomans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petko_Voyvoda

[Autrigón]

Napoleon was a very good military general, in fact one of the best in history.

On the other hand he was horrible as a communicator.
In theory he had good ideas to modernize Europe with new laws, new political systems, religious freedom, etc but his "marketing campaign" to implement it was a complete disaster.

[sevruk]

He infamously escaped from Russia, lol. Another great European with a mustache also ended sadly.

[Ouistreham]

renaissance12

NAPOLEONE = HUGE PIG...

Venice sinking to a new low.

[Hajimurad]

He infamously escaped from Russia, lol. Another great European with a mustache also ended sadly.

[Suinthila]

The French have made a national hero of Napoleon, however he was just a criminal like others before and after his times

Just investigate what he did in his country and in the others where he entered.

For many, Napoleon just was the best mayor of Paris.

[Davystayn]

Do they? You probably haven't yet noticed that there's not a single Rue Napoléon, Avenue Napoléon, Place Napoléon in Paris.


Well... He only set the foundations for all modern legal systems and State organisations.

The paradox is that he created the technical conditions for modern democracy, but as far as he's concerned he notoriously preferred to rule as en enlightened despot, following his role-model Frederic II of Prussia.


Re-read your history. From the day Napoleon seized power, he NEVER started a war. All his military campaigns were only counter-offensives.
The British are responsible for the millions of European soldiers who died in those wars.
Only to re-establish outdated and unsustainable old-style tyrannies.

Yes all leaders were responsible for those deaths back then, but to say Napoleon was only a counter offensive campaigner is stretching it a bit, still appreciate how important the revolution is for France

Charlemagne was probably a greater figure

[JamesBond007]

Well... He only set the foundations for all modern legal systems and State organisations.

Funny you should mention the legal system as I will mention the great law scholar and scholar in general Gottfried Leibniz later. Anyway, did he really set the foundations of the anglo-sphere law e.g. old English common law, habeus corpus , magna carta etc.. etc.. ? I'm not sure that is why I ask.

The paradox is that he created the technical conditions for modern democracy, but as far as he's concerned he notoriously preferred to rule as en enlightened despot, following his role-model Frederic II of Prussia.

Only Anglo-Saxon countries can do democracy. The natural state of human society is despotism. If you tally up all the human lives that have ever been lived on this planet under organized systems of government, no more than five per cent were lived under consensual systems. Even to get up to five per cent, you have to include places like ancient Athens and Tudor England, which wouldn’t pass muster as “democratic” by modern standards. In the last couple of centuries, practically all consensual systems have been Anglo-Saxon. Other cultures can fake it for a few decades, as France, Germany, and Japan are currently doing, but their hearts aren’t really in it and they will swoon gratefully into the arms of a fascist dictator when one comes along.--John Derbyshire

Re-read your history. From the day Napoleon seized power, he NEVER started a war. All his military campaigns were only counter-offensives.
The British are responsible for the millions of European soldiers who died in those wars.
Only to re-establish outdated and unsustainable old-style tyrannies.

Sorry, that is rubbish, all war, says Voltaire, is a matter of robbery.

Napoleon was a complete dumbass compared to real Geniuses such as Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. Leibniz had even undertaken a diplomatic mission to the court of Louis XIV in an attempt to convince the French “Sun King” of the advantages of conducting a military campaign in Egypt (instead of against Holland and German territories). The most important historical effect of this proposition—essentially the same proposition that led Napoleon to a military disaster over a century later—was that it brought Leibniz to Paris. So , Leibniz is the real cause of Napoleon's disaster in Egypt even though he ultimately also battled Blucher. Do you call that smart or intelligent ? I call that dumb.