Wasn't Napoleon the greatest badass human being ever? (general, facts, colonies)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I mean Alexander and Ceaser came from royalty or had connections. Napoleon literally came out of nowhere to rule the entire continent for the most part. Had Russia not happened who knows what he'd have accomplished.
Who else compares....Gengis khan?
I mean Alexander and Ceaser came from royalty or had connections. Napoleon literally came out of nowhere to rule the entire continent for the most part. Had Russia not happened who knows what he'd have accomplished.
Who else compares....Gengis khan?
Jugashvili and Schicklgruber basically came out of nowhere as well, to become known as Stalin and Hitler.
Since he ultimately lost the Russian and the hundred days campaigns, the short answer would be "no."
As for coming from nowhere, I admire that in him, but:
A) He was in a time of revolution that made it possible
B) He did not do it alone, but was helped by other military giants such as Messena, Davout, Murat, Lasalle, Soult, Ney etc. who also were able to rise due to merit
C) As a human being he was an absolute piece of crap and I cannot bring myself to admire even his skill.
All depends how your rate and determine "badass"-ness. Are we talking like Chuck Norris comparisons here?
In terms of being self-made, Napoleon came from Corsican royalty which allowed him some very powerful mentors, so he wasn't entirely self made.
Russia was not the defining moment of Napoleon, it was his actions afterwards in the failed campaigns (touched by moments of brilliance) and political manuevaring of the next 2 years. Napoleon had gotten old, and fat, he lost his mojo. He let Russian's march into Paris for God's sake! That's not a badass.
I mean Alexander and Ceaser came from royalty or had connections. Napoleon literally came out of nowhere to rule the entire continent for the most part. Had Russia not happened who knows what he'd have accomplished.
Who else compares....Gengis khan?
No, not really. There is a lot about the man that one can admire, mainly his charisma as well as his grasp of strategy and tactics.
At the same time, his lemming-like march into Russia was absolute folly, a mark of hubris. Had Napoleon defined himself as a statesman rather than as a general, he would have created the Continental System in 1806 and been content with his spoils. Then he could have increased his hold on Europe while gradually nibbling away at British interests in the colonies. In that sense, he and Hitler had a great deal in common. Because they only understood war, they failed to attain a lasting and advantageous peace.
The man definitely had weaknesses. He failed to understand finance, which is where ultimately the British beat him. British banks kept the empire in the conflict and underwrote its allies, while Napoleon ultimately scraped by financially.
The other thing he failed to do was to truly create a new European order in the wake of his conquests. Instead of taking the best ideals of the French Revolution to provide him with a degree of moral authority in sweeping away the old order, he instead crowned himself Emperor and made the subjugated states of Europe into his vassals, even replacing established royal houses in Spain and Portugal with his own family members. I bet nobody has ever quoted the Who when discussing Napoleon, so I'll do it first: Meet the new boss / Same as the old boss. So the minute there was the possibility of success, the peoples of Europe rose up to oppose him.
Tactically, the man was brilliant without question. I'd offer that his greatest campaign wasn't Austerlitz or Italy, but his defense of France in 1814 before ultimately abdicating. But even then, he had his matches even in his day. Wellington, for one.
In the end, France has never been the same since Waterloo. So I would argue that Napoleon gave France a great deal of battlefield glory for two decades, followed by two centuries of increasing irrelevancy in world affairs, while the Anglosphere rose to dominance. In short, the Napoleonic Wars were a disaster for France. Why the French continue to lionize the man is beyond me.
Napleon had severe stomach problems the day of Waterloo and had to go off the field.
Marshall Ney then made the mistakes which cost France the battle.
By dawn of June 18, it didn't matter. Napoleon's army had already lost its race against time. It had to annihilate the British before Blucher arrived in force. It hadn't done so. In fact, Napoleon's failure to destroy the Prussians at Ligny was an enormous blunder.
Further, even if Napoleon had prevailed at Waterloo, it is extremely doubtful he would have lasted much longer against the combined might of the British, Prussians, Austrians, and Russians, not to mention the collection of smaller states who were uninterested in being his vassals again.
By dawn of June 18, it didn't matter. Napoleon's army had already lost its race against time. It had to annihilate the British before Blucher arrived in force. It hadn't done so. In fact, Napoleon's failure to destroy the Prussians at Ligny was an enormous blunder.
Further, even if Napoleon had prevailed at Waterloo, it is extremely doubtful he would have lasted much longer against the combined might of the British, Prussians, Austrians, and Russians, not to mention the collection of smaller states who were uninterested in being his vassals again.
I am not interested in speculative, alternative-outcome history fictions,
just facts without presuppositions.
I am not interested in speculative, alternative-outcome history fictions,
just facts without presuppositions.
I'm sorry, but you're the one dealing with alternative-outcome history. The minute you pointed out that Napoleon wasn't feeling well that day, you took that road by posing the What If of Napoleon feeling better.
I simply pointed out that the die was already cast by the time the battle was underway. Napoleon failed to eliminate one army in the field a couple of days earlier, so he was way outnumbered in terms of order of battle. the Prussians were bringing roughly 125,000 men into the field to supplement the British 98,000, while Napoleon only had 120,000 men.
Further, while outmanned, he was facing two separate armies both commanded by highly-seasoned field tacticians, unlike his early successes against the dilettantes faced in his early campaigns. And the preponderance of armies marshaling in the field against him would have made yet another defeat inevitable. Not much that's speculative about that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.