NationStates Jolt Archive

Who likes Napoleon, who hates him, and who thinks he was a "Hipster-Doofus"?

which one?

I would assume the pre-eminent one, and yes I admire him immensely.

I saw that movie he was in, Bill and Ted's Excellent adventure, and I thought he was kind of a dick. So crates was kinda cool though.

Napoleon Bonaparte I

Bill and Ted's excellant adventure? REAL history lesson. Not a bad movie though, all in all

Aww, I thought this thread was about Napoleon Dynamite.

A jumped up Corsican who failed his entrance into the British army and spent the rest of his life in reaction trying to prove his cojones. Possibly the most successful foreign power ever to invade France, destroying the Revolutionary government singlehandedly and dominating it as an Emperor. Somewhat bizarrely lauded as the greatest ever Frenchman (or at least most notorious).

Mind you, I am forced to respect someone who can A) become an Emperor in a Republic and B) militarise an entire nation.

Well, if totally in to the guy, look up the region Napoloen Admirers

He was probably a better general than Wellesley, but British red coats were just so more disciplined and skilled than the French that he couldn't win.

Not that he was outnumbered at Waterloo at all......

Wellington used Hessians mostly at Waterloo

Aww, I thought this thread was about Napoleon Dynamite.
lol me to
" do the chickens have large talons?"
gotta love that movie

Wellington used Hessians mostly at Waterloo

I was talking more in general about the Peninsular war, although I realise now that I was being stupid because Wellesley only faced Napoleon at Waterloo, and he faced other French Generals in Portugal and Spain. That's an interesting question actually - if Napoleon had sent another general to take his army to Moscow, and he himself had stayed in Spain - what would have happened?

Honestly I give Napoleon props. He never gave up and even came back twice. As said he militarized a country and made himself emperor in a country. In the end those damn Russians got him. He should have never invaded them. Who wants that barren wasteland anyways? Plus there’s only one Frenchmen who conquered England, and he did that to get a better title then “The Bastard”

Who likes Napoleon, who hates him....I don't see why I would say "I like him" or "I Hate him".

The man has written history...and has accomplished more than I can ever hope to accomplish...His legacy is Larger than life.

If I am to compare a Legendary man like Napoleon....I gotta measure the Foot-print he has left in the History of mankind...

After the Religion Icon like Jesus or Mohamed...

He is right there with the likes of Jules Cesar.

That is how big his "foot-print" is...

Who likes Napoleon, who hates him, and who thinks he was a "Hipster-Doofus"?

I don't know if I can say I like, but I cannot help admire him. Up until he crowned himself emporeor.

I don't know if I can say I like, but I cannot help admire him. Up until he crowned himself emporeor.
You're just jealous because you didn't get an invite to the ordination ceremony, or the after party.
I think that Napoleon was OK, all though the high point of his career was when he appeared in the highly accurate documentary Time Bandits.

He was a smart cookie that one. He took the idea of the nationstate, which kind of came up in the French revolution - and turned it into a weapon.
That's why he won all those battles, not because he was a better general than everyone else (maybe he was though), but because it was France against Kings, Queens and Emperors. The final end of Feudalism you could say.

That being said, as a German, I am somewhat obliged to say that I hate his guts, and that I prefer to think about Leipzig rather than Waterloo, and that Blücher saved Wellington's arse.

Napoleon bonaparte was a great military tactitian(except for tryin to invade Russia in the winter), he was actually a gentleman. He did have a nervous cough, and some intestinal problems, cholera, but who didn't at the time? I admire him greatly, because I did a report on him in 7th grade, which, if you do alot of research, you will get the full side of the story and awesomeness of history itself.

Napoleon's got nun-chuck skills gosh
And you're talkin about *that* Napoleon? IDIOTS!

In the end he lost. But, hell, I would love to take over the U.S. and invade some countries, even if at the end of the day we totally got owned.

Napoleon lost because the Austrians and British outmaneuvered him at Waterloo. Napoleon actually did win some wars, but in the time Napoleon ruled the wars were going on and off. Napoleon was the last guy(of my knowledge) that actually led France to victory since then. Also, what really got Napoleon, weakened his army, and gave the upper hand to Europe was his invasion of Russia. Only 1/10 of his 1/2 million man march made it back to France.

Honestly I give Napoleon props. He never gave up and even came back twice. As said he militarized a country and made himself emperor in a country. In the end those damn Russians got him. He should have never invaded them. Who wants that barren wasteland anyways? Plus there’s only one Frenchmen who conquered England, and he did that to get a better title then “The Bastard”

That is william i suppose

But what amazes me is he became emperor only years after the revolution the french either wanted a republic but as soon as somebody wants to become pretty much a new monarch they didnt seem to know what they wanted "we kill our monarchy then ELECT a Emperor" i mean napoleon i think should of not lets is ego control his actions he conquers europe which is more than france ever needed then invades russia during winter because they wernt doing what they were told then he is banished comes back gets into another war and because he thought he was so great he thought he could take on the most welled trained and equip army at the time (the british) he lead to his own defeat because he thought he could win nomatter what he did his tactics at Waterloo where pathectic he really needed to cure that thought he seemed to had of winning no matter what he did.

But what amazes me is he became emperor only years after the revolution the french either wanted a republic but as soon as somebody wants to become pretty much a new monarch they didnt seem to know what they wanted "we kill our monarchy then ELECT a Emperor"
There should be explanations for this:
-the Revolution was meant not to establish a republic, but rather a contitutional monarchy (in place 1789-1792); republican sentiment was traceable to a minority, the one that ultimately dominated through terror. When the minority in power fell, they returned to an almost aristocratic republic (the very interesting Directorate)
- Napoleon was already in power before being an Emperor (as a Consul-general), and this allowed him to manipulate votes and electoral law - as a Consul, he had basically the powers he had as an Emperor
- this aside, Napoleon can be seen as a fullfilment of the Revolution in some areas. You have: a strongly centalized govt., an elimination of outside threat - with the spectacular expansion in Europe, a Civic Code that consecrated Enlightenment ideals, a beaurocracy to replace nobility, an army based on conscription etc. all the way to the tricouleur flag he used.