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.
Was the book "Age of Napoleon"? If so I thought it was a pretty well written book. Herold isn't the biggest Napoleon fan out there, but I thought he did a pretty good job on what is basically an overview of the Napoleonic Age, more than it is a biography of Napoelon himself.
Unless I am mistaken (I read the book a long time ago), I think Herold's comparison was not so much tit-for-tat in terms of casualties and atrocities and goals, but more about the personality comparions and the "cult of personality" that Napoleon seemed to define that was copied by later dictators such as; Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
It's no secret that Hitler was a great admirer of Napoleon's, but beyond certain personality similarities (perhaps shared by all dictators), there is little in the historical record to show that the men were driven by the same desires or that Napoleon ever reached the depths of Hitlers hatred and depravity.
Yeah that was one of them. You are correct, Herold by no means says they are strikingly similar, but he, along with other NB biographers draw compairsons. I was just interested in everyone elses take. Thanks for responding.
It violates C/D TOS on various counts and is a blatant attack on freedom of speech.
What next? Jail for anyone who criticizes anything beginning with the letter "j"
This wasn't directed at me...but if you look at the referenced posters history you will see that it is called for. It's called self-policing a forum site, and if this poster comes in here and spouts some of the extremist crazy "white power" racist stuff she has been posting in the politics forum I expect she will be universally attacked here. We don't need moderators here. They might come in here from time to time and think they have an effect, but we have ways to clean up our own sub-forum.
It's no secret that Hitler was a great admirer of Napoleon's, but beyond certain personality similarities (perhaps shared by all dictators), there is little in the historical record to show that the men were driven by the same desires or that Napoleon ever reached the depths of Hitlers hatred and depravity.
Ditto Frederick the Great. As one historian put it "Frederick was not like Hitler, but Hitler wanted to be like Frederick.
In the nastiness league, Nappy was probably closer to Fritz (or Wilhelm II) than to "Orrible Adolf.
No 6 million is pretty much the accepted number. It may change on the websites you frequent depending on how much the Stormfront webmaster's been drinking on any particular day however.
I've given it some thought and it struck me that both Napoleon and Hitler may be fairly characterized as men whose ambitions were not ameliorated by the death tolls required to bring them about.
The difference is that while Napoleon didn't mind that many had to die in order to bring about his vision of a Europe dominated by his values and his personality, Hitler's vision of a Europe dominated by his vision and values included a program of the deliberate murder of non combatants who were not part of the future landscape he envisioned. The difference then becomes:
A) The need for this is so great that it is worth my risking your life, voluntarily or by compulsion if needed.
B) the need for this is so great that it demands you forfeit your life.
I think that other arguments about the differences would hinge on the ideologies involved. Napoleon was exporting the values of the French Revolution, Hitler was exporting German Fascism. If you embrace the former while loathing the latter, then of course Hitler is far worse. If you admire National Socialism, then not.
I think that other arguments about the differences would hinge on the ideologies involved. Napoleon was exporting the values of the French Revolution, Hitler was exporting German Fascism. If you embrace the former while loathing the latter, then of course Hitler is far worse. If you admire National Socialism, then not.
I agree with everything you are saying except the last paragraph, or at least how people will interpret the last paragraph. The anti-monarcy ideals of the French Revolution were still alive during the Bonaparte era, but France during Napolean was probably something more resembling Fascist Germany (without the master race ideology and concentration camps) than a democratic republic. It was a brutal police state, a dictatorship. Of course, the French Revolution was over a decade old by the time Napoleon came to office, and it it went sour from the beginning. People should not mistake the ideals of the French Revolution with the ideals of the American Revolution.
I submit that neither Hitler, nor Napolean, were concerned about exporting the values of their political systems. For both, it was under the pretense of national defense. Both arguments of course fail to hold water, although for Bonaparte the case can be argued for that in the early part of the wars.
But in reality, Napolean needed booty. He conquered many countries to loot them, and to tax them while under French rule as puppet states, for the bankrupt French economy. In that sense the wars of the Napolenic Era fed off each other - wars cost money, victories obtained money.
For Hitler, it was not really about booty, it was about expansion for the sake of expansion. In his assesment, German's needed breathing room. The solution for that was to take land. There are also secondary goals, it was to atone of the loss of WW1, and expansion of the German state fit the Nationalistic platform of the Nazi party.
I agree with everything you are saying except the last paragraph, or at least how people will interpret the last paragraph. .
Perhaps I should have made the argumentative distinctions more clear. The first part is the critical difference, the second part is the perceptive difference. The first part dealt with what was going on inside Napoleon's and Hitler's heads, the second with what was going on inside the heads of those persuaded to cooperate with them.
True, often though you wil hear Spain was Napoleons "Vietnam." Obviously that analogy like any other, has all types of holes, but people often cite the Russian campaign without mentioning the drain of resources and time that his army spent in Spain.
Going back to my premise, I think another Hitler/Bonaparte failing of the comparison is that Napoleon was loyal to his family - he put them in as kings/princes/princesses all over Europe, whereas (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) I don't think Hitler had any family in his life in his adult life? At least that played significant roles in his policy making.
For me, as spanish, napoleon was the biggest traitor of the history. He deserves a place near Judas, Bruto and Casio.
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.
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.
