Napoleon Bonaparte: A Military Despot or an Enlightened Sovereign?

I chose the first option but neither satisfied as both the question and following post are based on a far more individualist reading of history that can be supported.

अवतरण:

The rise and fall of Napoleon Bonaparte

Psychological studies of "great men and women" frequently serve as a fig leaf to disguise the absence of an understanding of broad socio-historical processes. The study of history is replaced by trivial personal observations. Instead of science we have gossip. The negative traits and peculiarities of a great person are related in detail, as in the memoirs of a valet. But as Hegel remarked, the valet who recalls this trivia never made history.

A careful study of the character and background of Napoleon Bonaparte can furnish us with many useful insights into his behavior, just as similar information concerning Hitler and Stalin can cast some light upon theirs. In his biography of Stalin - a wonderfully profound work of historical materialism, Trotsky dedicates the first chapter to Stalin's childhood and upbringing - a necessary component of any biography. He carefully excludes the kind of sensational exaggerations and the conclusions that are read into a man's past on the basis of what he later became. But having sifted the source material carefully, we are left with a small amount of useful information that can help us to attain a deeper understanding of Stalin's subsequent evolution.

Men and women make their own history, but they do not make it freely, in the sense that the scope and results of their actions are strictly limited by the given socio-economic context that is prepared independently of their will. Different personalities are required by different historical periods. There are times when history demands a Lenin or a Trotsky, and others when a Stalin can come to the fore. It is the historical context that provides the individual with the necessary field of action. But there are certain circumstances when the actions of an individual, or group of individuals, can exercise a decisive influence, inclining the balance in one sense or another.

Of course, personal characteristics cannot determine the course of great historical events. But they can and do influence the specific forms taken by events. They do not create the ebb and flow of broad historical processes, but they can create the very complicated patterns, cross-currents and eddies that affect the short and medium term.

(emphasis mine)

Napoleon? More like Bropoleon, am I right?

Do the chickens have large talons?

/facepalm

.../yoshi eyepalm...

लिखा द्वारा Psychostick, 09.03.2011 at 18:38

.../yoshi eyepalm...

Okay, lets not make this "beautiful" thread a spam war...cuz I have an army of gardevoir gif files ready to make this place /b/

Lol, facepalm....

Whoaaa... thatsa lotta words. im with the facepalming:D facepalms for everyone

DEAR GOD , YOU CROSSED THE LINE THIS TIME, SPAM-BOT. THIS THREAD IS FUCKING HOLY.

लिखा द्वारा Garde, 15.10.2012 at 21:52

DEAR GOD , YOU CROSSED THE LINE THIS TIME, SPAM-BOT. THIS THREAD IS FUCKING HOLY.

This post just seems to cry...

You just necroed the oldest thread in the off topic forum. Well done, mate. Satisfied?

Actually he was replying to a spam bot that posted here, which I removed. Bad spam bot.

Oops. Sorry, mate.

Both of it

लिखा द्वारा LEGION, 18.10.2012 at 09:55

Both of it

Why do you even bother answering his long text with only three words? How did you come to this conclusion?

लिखा द्वारा learster, 18.10.2012 at 13:28

लिखा द्वारा LEGION, 18.10.2012 at 09:55

Both of it

Why do you even bother answering his long text with only three words? How did you come to this conclusion?

Weil es wenig Sinn macht, in dem Forum eines Browsergames über so etwas zu diskutieren. Jeder hatte hoffentlich Geschichte in der Schule. Und wie immer ist die Wahrheit farbenreich. Es gibt nie ein schwarz oder weiß, ein richtig oder falsch.
Weder Napoleon, Caesar, Bismarck noch Friedrich der Große waren vollends "Gut" oder "Böse" - wenn man denn die Welt in gut oder böse einteilen möchte.

Reicht das als Antwort?

Ja ist in deutsch geschrieben, aber da du die Frage gestellt hast und ich zu faul bin... weißt schon
und frage jetzt nicht nach dem Österreicher aus Braunau.

Well iavbiasfhgasifghasifghishfgsdhgiasdfhdfhdfhdfhdfhdfhdfhdfaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadgsgksmdfkgmskdgmksdmgkm.
so i think it's both of it

...or an italian

und frage jetzt nicht nach dem Österreicher aus Braunau.
what is this a german joke?

लिखा द्वारा Aristosseur, 19.10.2012 at 01:07

...or an italian

und frage jetzt nicht nach dem Österreicher aus Braunau.
what is this a german joke?

No, not really - i just said that there is no easy black/white truth. And noone is completly "bad" or "good".
Hitler, on the other hand, wasn't good for Germany/Europe/World...

found something: The end justifies the means. - not everytimes it seems.

लिखा द्वारा LEGION, 18.10.2012 at 16:13

Weil es wenig Sinn macht, in dem Forum eines Browsergames über so etwas zu diskutieren. Jeder hatte hoffentlich Geschichte in der Schule. Und wie immer ist die Wahrheit farbenreich. Es gibt nie ein schwarz oder weiß, ein richtig oder falsch.
Weder Napoleon, Caesar, Bismarck noch Friedrich der Große waren vollends "Gut" oder "Böse" - wenn man denn die Welt in gut oder böse einteilen möchte.

Reicht das als Antwort?

Ja ist in deutsch geschrieben, aber da du die Frage gestellt hast und ich zu faul bin... weißt schon
und frage jetzt nicht nach dem Österreicher aus Braunau.

Well my first question still stands then, when it doesn't make any sense for you personally to discuss it, why even bother to post here?
And the question was not if he was good or bad, or black or white- take a look at the topic and you will find that there's plenty of room to discuss it. Come on, the topic itself already suggests that you can't really put Napoleon into a black or white category.

लिखा द्वारा Aristosseur, 19.10.2012 at 01:07

und frage jetzt nicht nach dem Österreicher aus Braunau.
what is this a german joke?

It's like how they do it in Harry Potter with "You-know-who", or Voldemort. He rather says Österreicher aus Braunau because Hitler is such an evil word.

.... he is a frenchmen, ok i like him .. is this ok for you?

Napoleon was a genius.

>counter-revolutionaries
>counter-revolutionaries everywhere
Napoleon was not an Enlightened sovereign, that word is usually used only for sovereigns in the 18th century.

Lord Byron considered him the archetypal Byronic hero. Haters hated and he stood alone versus the world most of the time, but ultimately his policies transformed Europe (and by extension, the world) forever. The return of the reactionaries into power across Europe would only last until the Revolutions of 1830 and any notions of going back would be abandoned by 1848.

In other words; Napoleon gave you FREEDOM, respect that man. It's why the revolution was not limited to France and his influence in saving the revolution--and later expanding it across Europe, was visible from the Siege of Toulon onwards. And he was far less of a dictator than Robespierre. Even the Directory executed people once in a while. Napoleon was better.

This thread should be locked.
why you guys even considering to respond to such old thread ?!

लिखा द्वारा Abraham, 20.10.2012 at 12:53

This thread should be locked.
why you guys even considering to respond to such old thread ?!

Well, it's only about 1.5 years ago this written... no biggie...

Napoleon: A Hero or Despot?

my answer is loser.

Napoleon , Lolz Lolz

HE WAS NEITHER!