Poll: So... How about that Napolean guy?

[tricky_tree]

interesting tidbit, he originally wanted to join the Royal Navy.

back OT, anyone that goes off the handle a bit and attempts to conquer vast amounts of land can't really be described as a good person with all that blood on their hands.

 

[Yureina]

Not a good person, but he was someone with a truly fascinating story and impressive abilities. I'd call him one of history's most important figures, but I would not say that he is a "good" person because his fame and success was bought with the blood of millions. Even if that was not in deliberate genocide, Napoleon still built an empire on violence.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Well...before Hitler he was often considered the Anti-Christ of the world. Heck, some people claim that when Nostradamus claimed there would be 3 anti-christs, Napolean was the first one (Followed by Hitler some hundred years later).

The guy may have been a great leader to the French and he supplied the Americans with hundreds of acres of land, but to most of the European and French Colonies, he was an evil tyrant. There is a reason why they banished him.

 

[HerrBobo]

However, something you wrote perplexes me:

I believe it is wrong to judge a man who lived some 200 years ago by the standards of today

Surely in 200 years, nobody will say Hitler was a good man, but will they still consider him to be bad? It's interesting to think about, but that is the topic of another thread.

Maybe in the future? Or maybe able to be found through the magic of the Search bar?

Ah, but now you are doing the opposite. How do you know (or any of us)what the standards of the future will be? All of us alive today would be as out of place in the 17-1800s and we would be in the 21-2200s.

I never said Napoleon was a good man. I said he was no worse, or better then his peers. No one will ever say Hitler was a good man. However, in 200 years, some 265 years after his death, after he has passed from all living memory, historians might look at Hitler......and then at Stalin and then at Mussolini and then at Franco and then Mao and then at Pol Pot. They might decide that, by histories' standard, he was no better or worse then his peers.

 

[USSR]

Great general, in my opinion.
Such a sad downfall though :|

At the lengths of calling him a "good person"..
Meh.
Arrogance is a bad trait to possess when it comes to moralities.
Or any situation, in fact..
Especially when his overconfidence cost him many soldiers' lives when storming into Russia.

 

[The Madman]

He's one of those figures that falls squarely in the Grey.

Personally, I believe he had good intentions. He was egotistical, slightly crazed, and most certainly paranoid. But that said people in positions with even a tenth of the power he briefly wielded have done much, much, much worse with impunity. Had Napoleon not been to a degree a moral figure, I think things would have been extremely different. But he 'saw' himself as a good man, and tried to act as he thought he should as a result. How did that turn out? Far from perfect, but considering how people in positions of power such as his own have acted throughout history, certainly nowhere near the worst.

He was racist, as everyone from that era was, and had his own bias and egotrips. But at least he tried to restrain himself. No doubt evidence of his education and knowledge of history.

So I voted yes. Not because I think he was a particularly good man, but because it seems most appropriate the yes/no should balance out. I think that'd best reflect his story. Hero to some, villain to others!

Damned good general though.

 

[Sejs Cube]

Brilliant military leader.

Sort of an asshole, though. There have been worse, but he's on the list.

I wouldn't go so far as to call him a 'good' person, no. Significant, but not good.

 

[martin's a madman]

I'm an Ammoralist so... I can't answer in that regard.
But he certainly "Was"

 

[Insanum]

As an englishman, It is my duty to say he was french, And therefore a surrendermonkey deep down.

Now, im sure he did quite a lot of good things, But unfortunately i only know that he was defeated by the english in the end, and i have no idea about the rest of his actions, i only know he was short.

And on that note:

I find it fascinating that an insignifigant Corsican should climb so high as to become master of Europe, and change history forever.

Must've been a big step ladder.
(sorry, I couldnt resist)

 

[LetalisK]

Napoleon was an incredible general(probably #1 in my book) and established some important social policies....but he waged war for the sake of megalomania, so he's a shithead.

 

[One of Many]

He was racist and antisemtic.

Well, to be fair, just about everyone was racist back then however, I don't know where you got he was antisemitic from. He emancipated Jews from laws which restricted them to ghettos, and he expanded their rights to property, worship, and careers. When other nations protested this, he was quoted to say; "I will never accept any proposals that will obligate the Jewish people to leave France, because to me the Jews are the same as any other citizen in our country. It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them."

Hell, he was so nice to Jews that the Russian Orthodox Church named him "Antichrist and Enemy of God".

 

[Pimppeter2]

He was racist and antisemtic.

Well, to be fair, just about everyone was racist back then however, I don't know where you got he was antisemitic from. He emancipated Jews from laws which restricted them to ghettos, and he expanded their rights to property, worship, and careers. When other nations protested this, he was quoted to say; "I will never accept any proposals that will obligate the Jewish people to leave France, because to me the Jews are the same as any other citizen in our country. It takes weakness to chase them out of the country, but it takes strength to assimilate them."

Hell, he was so nice to Jews that the Russian Orthodox Church named him "Antichrist and Enemy of God".

That was kind of the point of the rest of my post. That you can't blame him for something that was the social norm at the time.

I think I read about him being personally antisemitic somewhere, though I may be wrong. To the internet!

 

[Lionsfan]

Well I wouldn't say that he was a good guy per say. I mean, to a certain extent any one person who conquers a ton of land in a short amount of time no doubt did some bad things. The most interesting part is how he came from the bottom and almost took over the world. And that it took virtually every other nation working together to beat him. So I'd say Napoleon was more or less even knell

 

[VivaciousDeimos]

I think a lot of people are only focusing on the war aspect of his career. He did a lot of good things for France, other than conquer stuff.

The French Revolution left France severely destabilized. Their national deficit in 1789 was twenty seven million dollars, which for then was a lot. Napoleon came in, took advantage of the turmoil, and put himself in a position of power. He then promptly went about the task of fixing shit. He established the Bank of France and helped stabilize currency to prevent future bankruptcy. He also put into effect the August Decrees, which basically said, among other things, that all citizen were eligible for any office regardless of birth. The Civil Code unified the laws throughout France, which was new. The Concordat allowed the worship of religion again, something that had been denied during the Terror. He basically stabilized the country while trying to implement the ideas that the Revolution were fought over.

He did a lot of good locally, I guess would be the short version.

But then of course, there's all the conquering business. Some were pre-imminent strikes--he feared attack from the outside and wanted attack on his own terms...others were probably for the 18th century version of "the lulz", so...that's definitely a mark against him. But I've always respected the fact that he was too badass to execute, so they exiled and he came back and started doing the same shit all over again. Much less successfully.

Was he a good man? *shrugs* I think it's hard to judge two-hundred years later out of moral context.

 

[Sougo]

Napoleon was a military genius. As long as he wasn't fighting at sea.

I respect him. From him comes the quotation: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

 

[Diamondcrackingcock]

He wasn't antisemetic. In fact, he passed several laws that aided the Jews, as he realized that they weren't particularly bad citizens and could make money from the jobs they would do. He was rather stoic and rarely displayed emotions, a trait that was particularly clear after he allowed himself to be captured, expecting to be treated well and fairly. He made small talk with the captain, and often appeared at ease. He was immensely full of himself, as made clear by the 5 coffins he is buried in, and the massive list of his accomplishments that he posted on the walls around his coffin. There are many accounts of him committing horrifying acts during his multiple wars, but they have been largly unproven if i remember correctly. On an irrelevant note, he also had terrible pains while voiding. Meaning that going to the bathroom hurt so much he was sometimes unable to visit the battlefield. He also apparently had meetings while in the bathroom. but yeah, Napoleon was a great military tactician, a decent man, and not the flaming anti semite as some believe. I'm sure he had his evil moments though, as all men in power do.

 

[SPCF]

Well, it all depends on what you mean by "good"
Yes, he did kill a buncha people, but he was also a great leader...
I'd probably say good, since he DID change history.

 

[Judgement101]

I thought he was like Hitler minus that holocaust part...

 

[HerrBobo]

I'm an Ammoralist so... I can't answer in that regard.
But he certainly "Was"

Funniest thing I have read all day! Thanks for that.