Thedayrecker said:
So esteemed readers, do you consider Napoleon to be a good man?
Good by what standard?
If you mean by our standards, then no. He was a warmonger, elitist, racist, imperialistic, narcissistic and a megalomaniac. Who was directly, or indirectly responsible for 1,000s of deaths.
However, as a historian, I believe it is wrong to judge a man who lived some 200 years ago by the standards of today. When one look past, the mountains, of propaganda around Napoleon you find that, as man he was really no better or worse that any of his peers.
As a general he was good, not great. He did well in Italy but he was against very poor, and very poorly led Austrian armies. The Austrian commanders at the time were, at best 4th rate, and often divided their forces. I believe even as early as his Egyptian conquest of 1799 the cracks in his command style were being to show; soldiers living off the land, overstretching his armies. He got away with it there, but it was a local provincial war.
From what I have read about Napoleon, and I have not read a whole lot, part of his command success was him his drive. His vim and vigour. He knew every soldiers name, he led from the front, he seemed to be everywhere at once. His personal example inspired his troops.
However, on later campaigns, such as Russia, Napoleon was 43, over middle age (for the time). It seems much of this vim, much of this personal example was gone from the way he conducted himself. Age was catching up with him. Of course, far more important then this was he allowed his army to be sucked into a Russian winter. The biggest flaw Napoleon had as a commander was that he was unable, or unwilling to supply his army properly. This had worked in western Europe, but the Russians either burned, or took with them all the food they could. Napoleon assured his men that Moscow would have both food and shelter, but when they got there it was abandoned and had been raised to the ground.
Thus, his invasion stalled, and the rest is history.
