If Napoleone had big war robots at his disposal, he'd be unstoppable. And also, he shouldn't have trusted the guy who took power through seeing his father being murdered.
So if we follow your logic the U.S. should be populated by very many idiots. Oh and don't forget one thing the world was built by this kind of "mudered" like Napoléon .
@jeffkodiac Actually, yes, the US is populated by many idiots, but I know a few that actually care about human beings. It all depends what you mean by "build". Murdering millions and stealing their resources is not something I would be proud of. I know you would, but for me "murder" is against God and therefore an abominable action. Invading nations for their oil is just the actions of criminals and thugs. Napoleon was nothing but a thug and he's burning in hell forever.
What you say is nonsense . The history of the construction of the world is madein the violence. Napoleon was no worse than those comtemporary monarchs .Napoleon create the Code Civil and all men are equal before the law this code is also still in use in several countries. Napoleon develop agriculture with the cultivation of new plants. Napoleon is also contributed to the development of medicine and pharmacy .
@cuzcatlan36 you're an idiot!!! violence by itself isn't a bad thing, the way you use it is what makes it good or bad!!! and in this case(except for spain) napoleon was always on the right side!!!
@boss180888 see, I enjoy fantasy movies, and i can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. you on the other hand are willing to carry out wholsale slaughter in the name of the flimsiests excuse, such as democracy, "freedom", empire, interests etc. Satan is the father of all murderers. In your heart you have murder against your fellow humans. You are the child of Cain. Spilling blood is your joy. You serve Satan and to him you shall go whe you die. repent murderer, and you shall be...
@cuzcatlan36 what? "you on the other hand are willing to carry out wholsale slaughter"now THAT is jumping into conclusions :D just because i find it right to exercice self defense that makes me a mass murderer? check again napoleon's campaigns made it possible for you to live in a world where you can be someone acording to your merits and not your ascendency(or so we hope we live in such a world). so criticizing him makes you not only ungrateful, it makes you an ignorant as well.
@boss180888 nice apology for murder, the nazis tried that one too, they experimented on human beings to find stuff like aspirin. the end justifies the means right? sorry, a mass murderer can try to placate his conscience by building schools, and setting up some social programs, but he will never bring comfort to grieving mothers, orphan children, lost brothers and sisters butchered by savage killers. Thou shall not kill says the LORD!
@cuzcatlan36 oh please, you are complimenting that sob hitler by comparing him with napoleon! religion? right..you mean that lying,hipocritical thing classes used for milleniums to control the masses in an unequal society?"Thou shall not kill says the LORD!" well it's a pitty he can't be killed because anyone who can be killed will find killing a very useful means of survival when cornered up to a wall!!! look the people napoleon conscripted were big boys so stop with the grieving mother thing.
@boss180888 I just came back from working with future murderers and criminals in general, who knows maybe you and them will share a cell some day, rape each other, and swap stories of who your criminal heroes are, such as napoleon.
@boss180888 nice apology for murder, the nazis tried that one too, they experimented on human beings to find stuff like aspirin. the end justifies the means right? sorry, a mass murderer can try to placate his conscience by building schools, and setting up some social programs, but he will never bring comfort to grieving mothers, orphan children, lost brothers and sisters butchered by savage killers. Thou shall not kill says the LORD!
@boss180888 nice apology for murder, the nazis tried that one too, they experimented on human beings to find stuff like aspirin. the end justifies the means right? sorry, a mass murderer can try to placate his conscience by building schools, and setting up some social programs, but he will never bring comfort to grieving mothers, orphan children, lost brothers and sisters butchered by savage killers. Thou shall not kill says the LORD!
my enemys are many my equals are none. in the shade of the olive trees they said italy could never be conquered. in the land of pharoahs and kings they said egypt could never be unbroken. in the realm of forest and snow they said russia could never be tamed. now they say nothing they fear me as a force of nate a dealer in thunder and death. i say i am napolean, I AM EMEPROR
Just to show everyone on this board what kind of coward TaoJoe is. This is the comment left to me in my inbox far away from the eyes of the public.
"What the fuck would you know about armies? You're American. Your country has never produced a good general in your pathetic 300 years of shit history. Fuck you!
"
What happened to mature lively debate on history? Does it really have to deteriorate into insults and ad hominem attacks?
The British bank-rolled every coalition against France! They incited at every turn for the Allies to break treaties. The British themselves broke the treaty of Amiens forcing Napoleons hands once again to war. The bloodshed of the Napoleonic wars can mostly be laid at the feet of the British! Napoleon was trying to keep the Royal Familes of Europe from forcing a Government upon the French that they did not want!
1798 was my favourite year the French army crushed the Turk-mongols in Egypt. Napoleon did the world a great favour by riding humanity from these fashist pigs.
The Turks still illegally occupy Eastern Thrace, Asia Minor, North Cyprus and Antioch.
This is the most important message you'll ever read. An Angel of God is informing us that the rapture is about to begin. The time is now to repent your sins. 2 Corin. 7:10, Repent Godly sorrow now and Luke 13: 6-9 Parable of the tree and a table is set for you in Matthew? 22:1-14. Amen and follow God NOW.
"As the nation was perishing I was born. Thirty thousand Frenchmen were vomited on to our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in waves of blood. Such was the odious sight which was the first to strike me."-Napoleon, to Paoli, May 1789
“The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…”~ Napoleon Bonaparte
@Scrinoverlord and where did you get Italy out of that? The only thing italian about them was the language. other than that corisca was never part of italy. it was owned by the french, given to the papacy, taken by the genoese and then bought back by the french.
That is true Scrinoverlord. I tried unsuccessfully to communicate that to someone at my college here and they didn't believe me. But Britain has always been the culprit of all the wars in Europe and now the war of the economy in America is being controlled by the bankers and London-wallstreet elite. They masterminded World War One and putting Hitler in power. It goes really deep man, but yeah Napoleon is made to look more monstrous but the British won didn't they?
Napoleon was a rather talented, bright person, cunning and saucy opportunist as most of the Italians, but with a great deal of peculiar stupidity, ridiculously pompous, a funny self-worshipper, with the strangest love attractions (still muted by official historiography), again, he had kind heart and certain naivety which he diligently tried to conceal. To me he’s a likable person but by no means an idol or genius – my mind is sober and I see history in bare facts.
@austinoltj, Napoleon was timely prepared for the refusal and hurriedly married Maria-Louisa, showing the public as if he had turned down the Russian princess himself so it looked nothing like a “public insult”.
He dreamed to have Alexander in Paris after the wedding and to charm and conquer him irrevocably. Contemporaries were amazed at his stubborn devotion to the tsar (it was wiser to gain the liking of the mighty russian nobility): “I know only him and with him only I want to talk!”
I will always consider him a special person who has a place in my heart.I want to know everything about him.Someday I wish I'll have the chance to go to Paris and visit Napoleon's tomb.I have 7 books to read about his life.
The more and more I research Napoleon, the more and more I wish Stanley Kubrick would have made the film about him. Kubrick owned one of the biggest archives on the planet about Napoleon and said it was going to be the greatest movie ever made if he got the chance.
Napoleon wasn't a military genius he was a military prodigy.... He should hav been satisfied with everything before the campaign against Russia.. Nd in summer then he could fight Russia
What do you mean "satisfied"? He was not a warmongering conquerer, he knew perfectly well when to be "satisfied". He was satisfied in 1802, but was Britain? No! She violated the Treaty of Amiens, and until the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon fought wars that were defensive in nature from an aggressive Britain and her Continental thugs.
Salut l'ami,juste un petit correctif pour la forme,Tu peux pas dire en anglais 'save to france of invasion' car ils sont tellement abrutis que meme si tu leur dirais Thank you ils comprendraient pas... donc tu dis 'save the France from invasion' et la ils vont comprendre ; )
Napoleon brought France out of instability and chaos and worked hard to create a strong government and economy and a country of law. Most of the institutions he built survive till this day: Polytechnique, the Napoleonic Code, the bank of France... for that he was great.
he was a military genius and people always respect genius.
But he really wanted to take over Europe and his wars (sometimes aggresion) caused too much death and destruction and that is why he also gets a bad rep.
why cant any of you remember the other countrys that helped him like Lithuania they provided much food for them to go to russia if it wasnt for those little countrys they would of starved much faster then the march to russia
its amazing actually, that the archbishops of usury, the rothschilds were able to distort history, napolean, who reverted to Islam along with his first general, Ali Napolean bonarparte and his first general Abdullah-Jacques Menou had a vision of an Islamic France(some of Islams laws are alredy implemented in french law on jurisprudence) In islam usury is strictly forbidden, so that means no federal reserve.Napoleon tried to rid Europe of usury, but failed in what was a valiant effort.
The official French Newspaper of its day, Le Moniteur, carried the accounts of his conversion to Islam in 1798, and mentions his new Muslim name which was Aly Napoleon Bonaparte. He commends the conversion of General Jaques Menou, who became known as General Abdullah-Jaques Menou, who later married an Egyptian lady, Sitti Zoubeida. Few people are aware of this aspect to the Battle of Waterloo, because as we pointed out at the beginning, the history was written by the victors.
Once again the Arch Bishops of European Usury, The Rothschilds, had managed to prevent the further liberation of Jews and Gentiles alike, by successfully preventing Napoleons clear Islamic vision for Europe becoming a reality .
I'm Napo's fan though I don't consider him a genius - simply his enemies for the most part were formidably weak. As for the Russian war - this silly continental system was violated almost everywhere, also by Napoleon himself. He often complained that the war was caused by trifling matters. If the political matters were that trifling to him, then what was the real reason? Personal "affairs" with
Looks like there has been much gossip about their "affairs" lately... Anyway, Napoleon says: ". I love and infinitely respect Alexander and I'll always love him. ..... But even if a rupture takes place between France and Russia, I'll still love Emperor Alexander and my personal feelings toward him will never change."
"Why France and Russia went to war in 1812 has been a puzzle to historians. It was no less so to Napoleon's companions in exile at St. Helena."
@Darejan Napoleon went to war with Russia because he asked Emperor Alexander for a princess to marry and Alexander decline him one. Feeling insulted Napoleon needed to keep his authority and respect, and felt he had been slapped in the face so he would return the favor by destroying Russiaand taking its glories for France.
@Darejan The most pressing reason why France attacked Russia was because Russia defied France by continuing to trade with Great Britain, in essence, economically supporting France's nemesis. Napoleon wanted to starve Britain out, but he was unable to do so.
There was the polish problem aswell. But I think what he wanted was a quick war with russia, get them to "sue for peace" That way he could of forced them to hold back the Austrains while his army was in spain.
@legvera I agree. Both Prussia and Austria saw two weak leaders rise to power in that time, which would have normally been the two forces to stop him say if Frederick the Great was still living at the time.
@legvera I'm a Napoleonic Historian, Napoleon was a genuis and an expectional tactician and Ruler, France loved him and adored the structure he wanted as France. Napoleon who was the leading General in 58 battles, of those battles in only lost 5 . As well as battling this man had to run a Country and at times had to be at war with more than 4 other allied Coalitions. Yes the allies at points had weaker armies, but they also had the coalitions which gave a handicap to Napoleon.
@legvera the only draw back for Napoleon was obviously Russia, which then you can doubt not his leadership skills but his will to want more and do what generals in the past fell to do.
of what i have read of him he was a great man, particularly when he was young he mantained his family, since he was 16. Probably he became corrupter or cinical or some shit like that after he fucking became the most powerful man in the world, but it's understandable. He was a great man to me from what i know
It's funny that a mere self-identity or height complex makes you to create this power and dominance over others. Napoleon just had a height-complex and therefore deperately needed to proof himself. All these wars for power and too little self esteem. How sad really ^_^
@royalsteven He was 5"6 in British imperial measurements and the wars he fought began 7 years before he came to power. The sad part is that he gets accused of warmongering today by people who don't know their History and just look at the map
Napoleon never declared a single war. He imposed five time peace to the warmongering european kings. Of course, he conquered the continent, but, hey, you shouldn't declare war on France and lose...
In Egypt, Bonaparte was not the leader of France but just a general of the Directoire. The Casus Belli of the Russian campaign was the Russian withdrawal from the Continental system. This was a declaration of war, Alexander I knew it and wanted war.
He didn't conquer the continent. And if you didn't know, MANY of the european kings during Napoleons reign were in fact his relatives that he had appointed.
@BRavens27 Europe is a CONTINENT, oinker! Italy and Portugal/Spain are PENINSULAS on that CONTINENT! Oink, oink, oink piggy! Like all retarded oinkers you can't even read a MAP!
Portugal, Italy, and Spain have nothing to do with my comment. Napoleon never conquered Britain, Britain is part of Europe, thus Napoleon never conquered Europe. Not hard to understand, unless you have downs.
BRavens27, most ppl know that Napoleon did not conquer Britain, but most ppl don't consider Britain a part of the "continent". Sweden wasn't conquered either, but I don't bitch about it. Mainly because Scandinavia is also seen as "off shore", just like Britain. Other countries he didn't conquer are Russia, the European parts of Ottoman Turkey, Sardinia and Sicily.
The point is still that he dominated the European continent.
@MaxRWF Don't be fucking stupid, Napoleon was a military dictator, his entire legitimacy as ruler was based on conquest and imperialism. Britain was already at war with France, Austria and Russia were not stupid enough to let him strike the first inevitable blow. What you're trying to argue is that Hitler is not a bad man because Britain & France declared war on him first for invading Poland.
Napoleon was made Emperor through a popular plebiscite which make him much more legitimate than the Kaizer of Austria, the Tzar of Russia or the king of Britain. Napoleon never declared war. Even when he ridiculed the allied armies, he tried to make reasonable peace treaties 'cause he was seeking PEACE. Unlike the warmongering kings who were afraid to lose their power. Your comparison with hitler definetly ruined your argumentation, Napoleon spread the ideals of the French revolution, not hate.
@MaxRWF There you go again, acting as if the King of Britain was the national leader. Not true! Napoleon gained popular support, then he seized on a few oppertunities and became a dictator, therefore not a democractic leader. Britain has been a democracy since the english civil war, which was 150 years before Napoleon.
I never said Napoleon spread hate. He was not as bad as Hitler. I was merely saying comparisions can be drawn.
LOL when only 1% of the population can vote, this is NOT democracy, it's called oligarchy! All Frenchmen had several occasions to vote democratically, while Brits had to wait until 1919 !!! Under Napoleon, the son of a baker could become marshal of the Empire, while in Britain everything was determined by your birth. Napoleon may have lost, the ideals of the revolution have finally won. Even in the old aristocratic England, the son of a peasant, like you, can now become someone, if he works for.
@MaxRWF Well, at least you know your history. There is a difference between Britain & France in culture. Since the civil war, Britain has technically been a democracy, although it is not a democracy in the sense we would describe it today.
It's kind of insulting that you call me the 'son of a peasant', since you know fuck-all about me. I could be related to the queen, for all you know. There are no longer sharp class divisions here.
Yeah, well, it's not thanks to your English revolution that the class division is no longer sharp. It's rather thanks to the Napoleonic armies that revolutionized the traditional European society.
@MaxRWF That's true. But I'm afraid Napoleon did not affect Britain. You're acting as if republicanism, democracy and civil rights were Napoleon's ideas...
My opinion of Napoleon is neither here nor there. On one hand, he was a brilliant general, but on the other hand he killed a lot of people, and he took democracy away from France.
The main difference between the English revolution and the French one is that the latest was not only national, but universal. The French ideals affected directly or indirectly the entire Europe, hence the world. As an example, the Declaration of the Rights of Man has become the world's absolute standard of democracy. Napoleon is not guilty for the dead of these wars, as he never declared a single war. The guilt rests on the British oligarchy, the Austrian absolutism, the Russian autocracy...
@MaxRWF Democracy and civil rights were not thought up by french revolutionists, they were merely put into practise, which had never happened before. When Mr. Bonaparte became a military dictator, he betrayed the idea of democracy.
Britain was already at war with France, they cannot be blamed for starting the napoleonic wars. The Austrians were rightfully threatened by Bonaparte, so you can't really blame them for defending themselves, the Russian declaration of war was not perticuarly justified
@ToaJoe Napoleon was a "dictator" in the antic way : a legitimate ruler appointed in times of emergency (France was alone against the entire Europe).
Britain and Austria were at peace 7 times with France and betrayed every time peace treaties by gathering new offensive coalitions against France, while this county demanded nothing more than the respect of the status quo.
Russia was planning to conquer Poland.
But I suppose that these agressions were fully justified to your biased eyes...
@MaxRWF Ah no no no, Britain never signed a peace treaty. Britain was the only coalition partner who was always at war with them. That is why Napoleon surrendered himself to the British after waterloo- he said they had been the 'most consistant' of his enemies.
@ToaJoe Never heard of the peace of Amiens ? But you are right : although its military involvement was limited, Britain has spent a lot of money and energy to break the peace and destabilize Europe and bears the greatest responsibility for the 7 millions dead of the Napoleonic wars.
@MaxRWF Oh, please shut the fuck up. You say stupid things and twist the facts in order to be controversial. You're actually sat here trying to tell me that Napoleon did not have a share of the blame for the wars, when his entire legitimacy as a leader was built on military conquest? Napoleon was a military dictator, he was in his place because of the army, he had to invade in order to sustain the support of the army, the rest of Europe realised this and declared war first, mainly out of defence
Twisting? That's rich coming from someone with a rudimentary knowledge about history. Everything I said is proven, see "The Golden Cavalry of St-George" for the British destabilization of Europe. Napoleon was chosen to defend France from its enemies, not to conquer. Napoleon's conquests are just the result of the defeats of warmongering kings. Who gave a fuck when the English killed Charles I ? Nobody. So why on earth did Europe attacked France when it chooses to kill its king ? Pure agression.
@MaxRWF No, you're just an idiot. Europe attacked France because Napoleon was clearly (any fool can work this out) planning to invade Austria. If he was a peace keeping protector, why the fuck was he a renouned general who climbed up the pole of politics until he was military dictator? Britain did not destabilize Europe, they were just in a massive imperial rivalry with France, again equally of France's making as it was Britain's.
@ToaJoe Don't get insulting because you can't argue, read a fucking book instead. So, Napoleon planned to invade Austria because he was a renowned general ??? Your argument is crap. Get your facts right, Napoleon did everything possible to preserve peace with Austria. He even repudiated his beloved Josephine to marry the daughter of the Emperor of Austria, Marie-Louise. As you probably know, dynastic marriages were supposed to assure peace, at the time.
@MaxRWF Napoleon didn't declare any wars, but he was certainly fucking provocative. He moved his armies right up to the borders of Austria. And he married Marie-Louise to humiliate Franz, you're bullshitting.
I'm sorry, but you cannot sit here and tell me that Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most famous figures in military history, was a peace keeping saint. You're just trying to be controversial.
Napoleon was put in place to protect the gains of the Revolution that the European powers wanted to destroy. This required to repel their attacks. N. holds his reputation of a great general because he defended France's uncountable enemies for 20 years! Not sure your Wellington would have done better. Don't fool yourself, the purpose of the Coalitions was to put an end to the nascent democracy in France. The Coalitions have finally won and restaured a king in France. But it did not last ...
@MaxRWF You're just a sad nationalist. It is sad when you defend your country to the point where you try to lie about a military dictator and call them a 'protector'. I don't try to defend Oliver Cromwell when he massacred the Irish, or defend jack the ripper, just because I'm British. Napoleon was not an evil man, but you are the biggest retard for trying to say he was a peace loving hippie. Wellington wasn't perfect, but at least he respected democracy.
@ToaJoe I'm not saying N. was an angel, I'm just saying, he was a "dictator" in the antic way : a legitimate ruler appointed in times of emergency. Wellington was an aristocratic oligarch with contempt for his own soldiers, not a democrat. You're the retard : comparing N. with people which massacred a whole people or ripped women... You're ridiculous, you're just full of British nationalist propaganda. Wake up ! Read a book ! N. fought for liberty, not for the privileges of few, like Wellington.
@MaxRWF Wellington was an aristocrat yes but so were most people in his position in the military back in those times. He fought for his country just like anyone else would have done. Wellington disliked his men becuase of the fact that most of them were criminals but at the siege of badajoz he openly wept when he saw the dead bodies of his men
@Makashi11 Wellington called his soldiers "scums", while Napoleon called his soldiers "my children". It's insulting to compare Napoleon to Wellington. How could Napoleon be a warmonger since he *NEVER* declared a single war, his conquests are just the result of the numerous defeats of the European warmonger kings, who were attacking France in the first place. Every time, peace treaties were violated by the European tyrants, who were afraid to lose their privileges. Read a damn book, please !
@MaxRWF He never declared a single war, but as a General in France pre-his-military dictatorship he invaded Italy and Venice utterly unprovoked. The Western Powers thus reacted against aggressive foreign policy by attacking them once he had quickly risen to the top. You are being selective with the truth also - Napoleon had as much respect for his men as Wellington, whose 'scums of the earth' was not meant to be insulting but an innocent acknowledgment of the society most of his men came from.
@Makashi11 I'm sure that if you read further,you'd know that Russia broke the peace of Tilsit and was preparing to conquer Poland. In this case, you should blame the *agressive policy* of Britain and France which attacked Nazi Germany for its invasion of Poland... One of the reason why Napoleon failed the Russian Campaign was that he refused to humiliate the tzar by crushing its armies when he had the occasion and that he lost time waiting for the tzar's response to his repeated peace proposals
@MaxRWF One of the great reasons the Coalition powers were aggressive toward Napoleon was that they feared him and post-Revolutionary France. Napoleon made very little / no attempt whatsoever to assuage their fears and make it clear that, as you implied, he wanted only peace. Do you really think Europe wanted to spend all that money fighting VERY expensive wars for any other reason? Also stop assuming you know more than everyone else. Telling people to read is venomously pretentious.
@Makashi11 Of course the Tzar of Russia, the Kaiser of Prussia and the British oligarchy were freaked out by what had happened to Louis XVI! Regardless the number of poor soldiers who would die, the purpose of the Holy Alliance has never been other than to keep the privileges of few, to crush secularism, democracy and liberty. They only accepted peace when they thought the ideals of the French revolution were anihilated in 1815. But thanks God, these ideals finally overcame these tyrannies...
@MaxRWF It is now clear that you are the one who needs to do a bit of reading. The outcome of the French Revolution, like Cromwell's England, like Stalin's Russia, like Gaddafi's Libya, was a spuring of the ideals on which the uprising were based and a creation of a far greater tyranny than had existed under Monarchy. This is symbolised in Napoleon going from First Consul to outright Emperor. Napoleon should have made clear he would not meddle in other countries' affairs. Otherwise? War.
@Makashi11 You're confusing everything: France fell into terror because it was attacked by all sides. It's not because there was terror in France that the nice little surrounding tyrannies decided to interveine. When England killed its king, nobody gave a fuck. But when France did, the entire continent attacked the new republic. The reason why European monarchies were so virulent against the French Revolution was because its ideals were universal and scared those tyrants.
@MaxRWF By 'universal' you really mean 'internationalist'; and by 'internationalist', you really mean conquering the known world until the ideals YOU favour are spread across the globe. Is it any wonder the Coalitions intervened? And anyhow - post-revolutionary France had proved itself an aggressive foreign power. Napoleon himself led aggressive invasions of Italy and Venice - again, how can you blame the Coalition powers for pre-empting Napoleon's France before the demi-god got them too?
@Makashi11 Human rights are universal by nature, they are aimed at the whole mankind, unlike the Bill of right, by example, which is just valid for a single nation.The conquests of the French republic are the result of the defeat of the powers which attacked France in the first place, not because France wanted Moscow or Shangai to be a French city, don't be ludicrous! So blame the european tyrants for war! BTW,Italian patriots were very pleased to have their own State instead of being Austrian
The only real invasion Napoleon ever planned, but never got to carry out was the invasion of Britain and his reason for this was, as others have already stated, because Britain would simply not leave him alone. They'd incite and bribe other contries into declaring war on France, break their treaties with France. The reason Napoleon took Venice for example was because Austria declared war on him, even though following their last war with him he had let them keep Venice and Illyria.
@MaxRWF Wellington greatly respected his own men, and always went out of his way to attend to their needs. His "contept" was the result of one quote taken massively out of context. He became the elected (unlike Napoleon) leader of his country, successfully campaigned for the french government to abolish the slave trade (something Napoleon never did) and introduced catholic emancipation. Napoleon was just a glory seeking tyrant who raped and pillaged half of Europe to feed his ego.
@uafchris Wellington was a pompous nawab who was elected by oligarchs representing less than 1% of the British population. Napoleon coronation was approved through a universal plebiscite. Something your aristocracy will forbid until 1919! Wellington let his men pillage the Spanish town of Badajoz. Your oligarchy bribed Europe to fight the French revolutionnary ideals (which were threatening its interests) and to secure its own greedy colonial expansionism. Tyrants are not where you think!
@MaxRWF Oh come off it. Napoleon seized power, he was never elected. Wellington didn't let his men pillage, he had extremely tough discipline and refused to let his men live of the land. Badajoz was a one off because he couldn't control them in the confusion. Napoleon let his men pillage all of Spain and Portugal, which was one of the reasons why the rebelled and invited the British in for help. Also Colonial expansion? What about Napoleon in Egypt? Or the War of Independence in Haiti?
@ToaJoe WELLINGTON RESPECTED DEMOCRACY!? Are you High? Wellington would never favor something that would openly question the legitamacy of Noble peerages or any other titles.
@rylege Do you even understand the Irish conflict? He may have been Irish but he wasn't a Catholic. Extending Catholic rights was a disgraceful policy among the establishment, and it has brought down many prime minsters!
Keep in mind: Everybody is a child of his time. Of cause we don't understand war as we have the privilege of living without it (ok, I put some "minor" wars like the european/serbian and todays millitary actions in Afganistan away) for more than 60 years. And, looking on his battles, he is everything else as an idiot.
Well, sure,he was a dictator, and that is not democratically elected but he has become what you suckers never could become, a ruler of the France.
TheCazinbih 1 week ago
If Napoleone had big war robots at his disposal, he'd be unstoppable. And also, he shouldn't have trusted the guy who took power through seeing his father being murdered.
arsviatticae 3 months ago
he was nothing but a murderer
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36
For murderer you can see also your American history .
jeffkodiac 4 months ago
@jeffkodiac murderers come in all shapes and sizes, and nationalities. glorifying murderers, only idiots do that.
cuzcatlan36 4 months ago
@cuzcatlan36
So if we follow your logic the U.S. should be populated by very many idiots. Oh and don't forget one thing the world was built by this kind of "mudered" like Napoléon .
jeffkodiac 3 months ago
@jeffkodiac Actually, yes, the US is populated by many idiots, but I know a few that actually care about human beings. It all depends what you mean by "build". Murdering millions and stealing their resources is not something I would be proud of. I know you would, but for me "murder" is against God and therefore an abominable action. Invading nations for their oil is just the actions of criminals and thugs. Napoleon was nothing but a thug and he's burning in hell forever.
cuzcatlan36 3 months ago
@cuzcatlan36
What you say is nonsense . The history of the construction of the world is madein the violence. Napoleon was no worse than those comtemporary monarchs .Napoleon create the Code Civil and all men are equal before the law this code is also still in use in several countries. Napoleon develop agriculture with the cultivation of new plants. Napoleon is also contributed to the development of medicine and pharmacy .
jeffkodiac 3 months ago
@jeffkodiac nonviolence is nonesense to the children of satan who see evil as normal.
cuzcatlan36 3 months ago
@cuzcatlan36
I think it must be difficult for a saint like you live in a world populated by children of satan .
jeffkodiac 3 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 you're an idiot!!! violence by itself isn't a bad thing, the way you use it is what makes it good or bad!!! and in this case(except for spain) napoleon was always on the right side!!!
boss180888 2 months ago
@boss180888 to serial killers that would make sense
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 oh please, says the guy who worships vegetarian vampires, you can't lecture me on reality.
boss180888 2 months ago
@boss180888 see, I enjoy fantasy movies, and i can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. you on the other hand are willing to carry out wholsale slaughter in the name of the flimsiests excuse, such as democracy, "freedom", empire, interests etc. Satan is the father of all murderers. In your heart you have murder against your fellow humans. You are the child of Cain. Spilling blood is your joy. You serve Satan and to him you shall go whe you die. repent murderer, and you shall be...
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 what? "you on the other hand are willing to carry out wholsale slaughter"now THAT is jumping into conclusions :D just because i find it right to exercice self defense that makes me a mass murderer? check again napoleon's campaigns made it possible for you to live in a world where you can be someone acording to your merits and not your ascendency(or so we hope we live in such a world). so criticizing him makes you not only ungrateful, it makes you an ignorant as well.
boss180888 2 months ago in playlist Mais vídeos de ranmafrontru
@boss180888 nice apology for murder, the nazis tried that one too, they experimented on human beings to find stuff like aspirin. the end justifies the means right? sorry, a mass murderer can try to placate his conscience by building schools, and setting up some social programs, but he will never bring comfort to grieving mothers, orphan children, lost brothers and sisters butchered by savage killers. Thou shall not kill says the LORD!
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 oh please, you are complimenting that sob hitler by comparing him with napoleon! religion? right..you mean that lying,hipocritical thing classes used for milleniums to control the masses in an unequal society?"Thou shall not kill says the LORD!" well it's a pitty he can't be killed because anyone who can be killed will find killing a very useful means of survival when cornered up to a wall!!! look the people napoleon conscripted were big boys so stop with the grieving mother thing.
boss180888 2 months ago
@boss180888 the devil is very pleased with you
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 oh i see, it's a competition of who says the most outrageous things without necessarily make sense...umm then i choose to say...bite me?
boss180888 2 months ago
@boss180888 I just came back from working with future murderers and criminals in general, who knows maybe you and them will share a cell some day, rape each other, and swap stories of who your criminal heroes are, such as napoleon.
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
Comment removed
boss180888 2 months ago
@cuzcatlan36 have you tried showing them vegetarian vampires?
boss180888 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boss180888 the devil is very pleased with you
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boss180888 nice apology for murder, the nazis tried that one too, they experimented on human beings to find stuff like aspirin. the end justifies the means right? sorry, a mass murderer can try to placate his conscience by building schools, and setting up some social programs, but he will never bring comfort to grieving mothers, orphan children, lost brothers and sisters butchered by savage killers. Thou shall not kill says the LORD!
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@boss180888 nice apology for murder, the nazis tried that one too, they experimented on human beings to find stuff like aspirin. the end justifies the means right? sorry, a mass murderer can try to placate his conscience by building schools, and setting up some social programs, but he will never bring comfort to grieving mothers, orphan children, lost brothers and sisters butchered by savage killers. Thou shall not kill says the LORD!
cuzcatlan36 2 months ago
my enemys are many my equals are none. in the shade of the olive trees they said italy could never be conquered. in the land of pharoahs and kings they said egypt could never be unbroken. in the realm of forest and snow they said russia could never be tamed. now they say nothing they fear me as a force of nate a dealer in thunder and death. i say i am napolean, I AM EMEPROR
mrhankeykicksurass 6 months ago
Just to show everyone on this board what kind of coward TaoJoe is. This is the comment left to me in my inbox far away from the eyes of the public.
"What the fuck would you know about armies? You're American. Your country has never produced a good general in your pathetic 300 years of shit history. Fuck you!
"
What happened to mature lively debate on history? Does it really have to deteriorate into insults and ad hominem attacks?
rylege 6 months ago
The British bank-rolled every coalition against France! They incited at every turn for the Allies to break treaties. The British themselves broke the treaty of Amiens forcing Napoleons hands once again to war. The bloodshed of the Napoleonic wars can mostly be laid at the feet of the British! Napoleon was trying to keep the Royal Familes of Europe from forcing a Government upon the French that they did not want!
rylege 6 months ago 3
Ever since napoleon, the french decided to do nothing but surrender hehehe
Robbie944 7 months ago
@Robbie944
You are funny and the English decided to fled .
jeffkodiac 7 months ago
1798 was my favourite year the French army crushed the Turk-mongols in Egypt. Napoleon did the world a great favour by riding humanity from these fashist pigs.
The Turks still illegally occupy Eastern Thrace, Asia Minor, North Cyprus and Antioch.
MrAugustus88 8 months ago
He was a fool to think he could withstand the climate AND the men
Lighthouse418 10 months ago
Fact: Every 5th soldier in the french army was Polish.
MartinTheL33t 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the most important message you'll ever read. An Angel of God is informing us that the rapture is about to begin. The time is now to repent your sins. 2 Corin. 7:10, Repent Godly sorrow now and Luke 13: 6-9 Parable of the tree and a table is set for you in Matthew? 22:1-14. Amen and follow God NOW.
Godsnewangels 11 months ago
like the check point at the end lol!
timewatch12 1 year ago
Viva La Napoleon!!
elazar79 1 year ago
"As the nation was perishing I was born. Thirty thousand Frenchmen were vomited on to our shores, drowning the throne of liberty in waves of blood. Such was the odious sight which was the first to strike me."-Napoleon, to Paoli, May 1789
parafleet 1 year ago
“The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…”~ Napoleon Bonaparte
Mrhoneyroastedpeanut 1 year ago
vraiment il ressemble a napoleon c'est vraiment un sosie
stockok 1 year ago
l'acteur est trop ressemblant, un truc de fou !
MrTwentycent90 1 year ago
Felicidades. Napoleón Bonaparte es, en mi opinión, uno de los cinco más importantes líderes mundiales.
Saludos
CaminodeSantiago08 1 year ago
Napoleon was a Arvanit , Arvanits are Albanians of Greece , Alexander was Albanian too :)
rronniii 1 year ago
@rronniii Uh, what. He was Corsican. From Italy. Where did you get Arvanit?
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
@Scrinoverlord Im talking about the origin , not where he lived
rronniii 1 year ago
@Scrinoverlord On l'a annexé en 1768.
Treyppa 1 year ago
@Scrinoverlord and where did you get Italy out of that? The only thing italian about them was the language. other than that corisca was never part of italy. it was owned by the french, given to the papacy, taken by the genoese and then bought back by the french.
SayNeverToIgnorance 1 year ago
genghis khan nickname is temka because he is born name temujin AND FRIENDS CALL HIM TEMKA
napoleon nickname is cognac because like his name one french cognac
alexsandar the great nickname is ALICE BECAUSE GREEK IS WONDERLAND
99681655 1 year ago
Rotschilds were rulers of France , yes Rotschilds in England , Jews
batalion666 1 year ago
Aleksander was Great Bonaparte was Crap
batalion666 1 year ago
political idiot
batalion666 1 year ago
english jews made Bonaparte
batalion666 1 year ago
@batalion666 YES FOR THIS HE WAS TURKMONGOL LOVER
unfukkkmee 1 year ago
Damn this actor nails the part of Napoleon...he's eye's are spot and his look for this period...
Napoloeon was known to have Grey eyes its very reare to see actors playing the great man with this minor detail
103littlebastard 1 year ago
That is true Scrinoverlord. I tried unsuccessfully to communicate that to someone at my college here and they didn't believe me. But Britain has always been the culprit of all the wars in Europe and now the war of the economy in America is being controlled by the bankers and London-wallstreet elite. They masterminded World War One and putting Hitler in power. It goes really deep man, but yeah Napoleon is made to look more monstrous but the British won didn't they?
MarkScheppy 1 year ago
Napoleon was a rather talented, bright person, cunning and saucy opportunist as most of the Italians, but with a great deal of peculiar stupidity, ridiculously pompous, a funny self-worshipper, with the strangest love attractions (still muted by official historiography), again, he had kind heart and certain naivety which he diligently tried to conceal. To me he’s a likable person but by no means an idol or genius – my mind is sober and I see history in bare facts.
GunmanFlint 1 year ago
@austinoltj, Napoleon was timely prepared for the refusal and hurriedly married Maria-Louisa, showing the public as if he had turned down the Russian princess himself so it looked nothing like a “public insult”.
He dreamed to have Alexander in Paris after the wedding and to charm and conquer him irrevocably. Contemporaries were amazed at his stubborn devotion to the tsar (it was wiser to gain the liking of the mighty russian nobility): “I know only him and with him only I want to talk!”
GunmanFlint 1 year ago
I will always consider him a special person who has a place in my heart.I want to know everything about him.Someday I wish I'll have the chance to go to Paris and visit Napoleon's tomb.I have 7 books to read about his life.
11superbliss 1 year ago
The more and more I research Napoleon, the more and more I wish Stanley Kubrick would have made the film about him. Kubrick owned one of the biggest archives on the planet about Napoleon and said it was going to be the greatest movie ever made if he got the chance.
bobb328 1 year ago
Napoleon wasn't a military genius he was a military prodigy.... He should hav been satisfied with everything before the campaign against Russia.. Nd in summer then he could fight Russia
MusicGroup13 1 year ago
@MusicGroup13
What do you mean "satisfied"? He was not a warmongering conquerer, he knew perfectly well when to be "satisfied". He was satisfied in 1802, but was Britain? No! She violated the Treaty of Amiens, and until the Battle of Waterloo Napoleon fought wars that were defensive in nature from an aggressive Britain and her Continental thugs.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
Interesting video. Thumbs up!
creamofcardstv 1 year ago
RAYMOND1531
Salut l'ami,juste un petit correctif pour la forme,Tu peux pas dire en anglais 'save to france of invasion' car ils sont tellement abrutis que meme si tu leur dirais Thank you ils comprendraient pas... donc tu dis 'save the France from invasion' et la ils vont comprendre ; )
aries37300 1 year ago
hold on a minute!! i cant figure out if napoleons good or bad. can someone help me decide?
MrPennyworth007 1 year ago
Napoleon brought France out of instability and chaos and worked hard to create a strong government and economy and a country of law. Most of the institutions he built survive till this day: Polytechnique, the Napoleonic Code, the bank of France... for that he was great.
he was a military genius and people always respect genius.
But he really wanted to take over Europe and his wars (sometimes aggresion) caused too much death and destruction and that is why he also gets a bad rep.
DonaldMele 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
fuck you Russia, shit country
vladnebunubv 1 year ago
@vladnebunubv
Come and check, ull get what u deserve :)
lynxxxxie 1 year ago
@vladnebunubv LOOK WHO`S TALKING - FREAKING ROMANIAN . GO SUCK SOME GYPSY DICKS IN YOUR SHITHOLE
Mishik77 1 year ago
Christ, he kinda looks like the Pengiun from Batman Returns. Did they put prosthetics on his nose?
LordBifford 1 year ago
FRANCE NEED YOU NAPOLEON !! Save to france of invasion
RAYMOND1531 1 year ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Napoléon était un dictateur et un boucher sanguinaire. Un traitre à la Nation Corse.
Napoleon was a dictator and a bloodthirsty butcher. A traitor in the Corsican Nation.
Napoleone era un dittatore ed un macellaio sanguinaire. Un traditore alla Nazione Corsa.
Napoleón fue un dictador y sangriento de un carnicero. Un traidor a la Nación Córcega.
CorsicaNustrale 1 year ago
This retarded & resentful Colombian or Venezuelan troll pretending to be a "redneck" is also the same one behind the murggik account
I
I
I
I
v
CazadorDeZopencos 1 year ago
@CazadorDeZopencos
gozzaoz 1 year ago
Napoleon use to brag about his campaigns into Africa .....when referring to Spain LOL!
ProudConfederateMan 1 year ago
who said anything about Gatling Guns lol
lonestar2779 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"England has fought against Napoleon to the last drop of Prussian, Austrian and Russian blood."
Freez57fr 1 year ago
Napoleon was an ego driven man with the drive only to ruen his country
lonestar2779 1 year ago
@lonestar2779 Remember to spell correctly before insulting any Emperor. Merci beaucoup, monsieur.
Spereta 1 year ago
@Spereta shut up you fucking idiot lol
lonestar2779 1 year ago
@Spereta shut up you fucking idiot lol Napoleon was a cock just like you, just did not know when to stop lol Adieu oh and Va te faire foutre, trouduc
lonestar2779 1 year ago
why cant any of you remember the other countrys that helped him like Lithuania they provided much food for them to go to russia if it wasnt for those little countrys they would of starved much faster then the march to russia
PivotVision 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
its amazing actually, that the archbishops of usury, the rothschilds were able to distort history, napolean, who reverted to Islam along with his first general, Ali Napolean bonarparte and his first general Abdullah-Jacques Menou had a vision of an Islamic France(some of Islams laws are alredy implemented in french law on jurisprudence) In islam usury is strictly forbidden, so that means no federal reserve.Napoleon tried to rid Europe of usury, but failed in what was a valiant effort.
4unitedMAN 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The official French Newspaper of its day, Le Moniteur, carried the accounts of his conversion to Islam in 1798, and mentions his new Muslim name which was Aly Napoleon Bonaparte. He commends the conversion of General Jaques Menou, who became known as General Abdullah-Jaques Menou, who later married an Egyptian lady, Sitti Zoubeida. Few people are aware of this aspect to the Battle of Waterloo, because as we pointed out at the beginning, the history was written by the victors.
4unitedMAN 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Once again the Arch Bishops of European Usury, The Rothschilds, had managed to prevent the further liberation of Jews and Gentiles alike, by successfully preventing Napoleons clear Islamic vision for Europe becoming a reality .
4unitedMAN 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm Napo's fan though I don't consider him a genius - simply his enemies for the most part were formidably weak. As for the Russian war - this silly continental system was violated almost everywhere, also by Napoleon himself. He often complained that the war was caused by trifling matters. If the political matters were that trifling to him, then what was the real reason? Personal "affairs" with
Alexander? lol
legvera 2 years ago 14
Aw, you were doing so well there. Then you said lol...shame...
Blackbear2oo9 2 years ago 2
Looks like there has been much gossip about their "affairs" lately... Anyway, Napoleon says: ". I love and infinitely respect Alexander and I'll always love him. ..... But even if a rupture takes place between France and Russia, I'll still love Emperor Alexander and my personal feelings toward him will never change."
"Why France and Russia went to war in 1812 has been a puzzle to historians. It was no less so to Napoleon's companions in exile at St. Helena."
Darejan 2 years ago 23
@Darejan Napoleon went to war with Russia because he asked Emperor Alexander for a princess to marry and Alexander decline him one. Feeling insulted Napoleon needed to keep his authority and respect, and felt he had been slapped in the face so he would return the favor by destroying Russiaand taking its glories for France.
austinoltj 1 year ago
Comment removed
GunmanFlint 1 year ago
Comment removed
GunmanFlint 1 year ago
@Darejan wanna gossip?
Napoleon to Alexander:
"I'm passionately looking forward to the moment when I'll see you again and personally express my feelings to you!" mm.. hot letter!
GunmanFlint 1 year ago
Napoleon, bon maar 't was nen aparte
s0213078 1 year ago
@Darejan The most pressing reason why France attacked Russia was because Russia defied France by continuing to trade with Great Britain, in essence, economically supporting France's nemesis. Napoleon wanted to starve Britain out, but he was unable to do so.
Payneisgod1 11 months ago
@Payneisgod1
Britain,far from France´s nemesis.
StellandBlood 8 months ago
There was the polish problem aswell. But I think what he wanted was a quick war with russia, get them to "sue for peace" That way he could of forced them to hold back the Austrains while his army was in spain.
rodthegreat08 1 year ago
@legvera you should get Napoleon total war mate :p
Norguy77 1 year ago
@legvera I agree. Both Prussia and Austria saw two weak leaders rise to power in that time, which would have normally been the two forces to stop him say if Frederick the Great was still living at the time.
wolfhoundj08 1 year ago
@legvera
Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of military history will tell you that calling his enemies weak is an insult to common sense.
Scrinoverlord 1 year ago
@legvera I'm a Napoleonic Historian, Napoleon was a genuis and an expectional tactician and Ruler, France loved him and adored the structure he wanted as France. Napoleon who was the leading General in 58 battles, of those battles in only lost 5 . As well as battling this man had to run a Country and at times had to be at war with more than 4 other allied Coalitions. Yes the allies at points had weaker armies, but they also had the coalitions which gave a handicap to Napoleon.
rfmgunner 1 year ago
@legvera the only draw back for Napoleon was obviously Russia, which then you can doubt not his leadership skills but his will to want more and do what generals in the past fell to do.
rfmgunner 1 year ago
of what i have read of him he was a great man, particularly when he was young he mantained his family, since he was 16. Probably he became corrupter or cinical or some shit like that after he fucking became the most powerful man in the world, but it's understandable. He was a great man to me from what i know
Migue261 2 years ago
what a funny russian accent :))
attila3453 2 years ago
It's funny that a mere self-identity or height complex makes you to create this power and dominance over others. Napoleon just had a height-complex and therefore deperately needed to proof himself. All these wars for power and too little self esteem. How sad really ^_^
royalsteven 2 years ago
@royalsteven He was 5"6 in British imperial measurements and the wars he fought began 7 years before he came to power. The sad part is that he gets accused of warmongering today by people who don't know their History and just look at the map
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago 2
Napoleon never declared a single war. He imposed five time peace to the warmongering european kings. Of course, he conquered the continent, but, hey, you shouldn't declare war on France and lose...
MaxRWF 2 years ago 21
he declared war on the ottoman empire. and russia
FilipH86 2 years ago 2
In Egypt, Bonaparte was not the leader of France but just a general of the Directoire. The Casus Belli of the Russian campaign was the Russian withdrawal from the Continental system. This was a declaration of war, Alexander I knew it and wanted war.
MaxRWF 2 years ago
well yes your right about napoelon not yet beeing the emperor but it was his expedition and they signed off on it.
Napoleon should have waited untill the spring to invade and gone straight for St. Petersburg
FilipH86 2 years ago
He didn't conquer the continent. And if you didn't know, MANY of the european kings during Napoleons reign were in fact his relatives that he had appointed.
BRavens27 1 year ago
@BRavens27
He appointed relatives on 5 european thrones because he conquered the continent...
MaxRWF 1 year ago
Last I checked Britain was part of Europe, which he never conquered.
BRavens27 1 year ago
@BRavens27 What's your badge number piggy, so I can crucify your chickenshit ass!
mbabist01 1 year ago
@mbabist01 will u stfu pl0x? napoleon didnt conquer europe because he didnt conquer britain which is part of europe.
pwn3dn00b97 1 year ago
He conquered Europe from Lisbon to Moscow which is more than anybody ever did.
MaxRWF 1 year ago
@MaxRWF the fact of the matter is the British Empire had no need to expand in to Europe.... you dweeb
lonestar2779 1 year ago
@lonestar2779
No need or not the ability ?
MaxRWF 1 year ago
@MaxRWF no Need as we had an EMPIRE
lonestar2779 1 year ago
@lonestar2779
Everybody had a colonial empire... even Belgium...
It's not that hard to slaughter primitive tribesmen with gatling guns...
MaxRWF 1 year ago
@MaxRWF Indeed, i'm from Belgium and NOT proud about what our Leopold 2 did in Congo
TheTristan1954 1 year ago
English culture would have disappeard given that the only invasion that succeeded in Britain imposed French language for 300 years in England
gipcambero 1 year ago
@BRavens27 Europe is a CONTINENT, oinker! Italy and Portugal/Spain are PENINSULAS on that CONTINENT! Oink, oink, oink piggy! Like all retarded oinkers you can't even read a MAP!
mbabist01 1 year ago
Portugal, Italy, and Spain have nothing to do with my comment. Napoleon never conquered Britain, Britain is part of Europe, thus Napoleon never conquered Europe. Not hard to understand, unless you have downs.
BRavens27 1 year ago
BRavens27, most ppl know that Napoleon did not conquer Britain, but most ppl don't consider Britain a part of the "continent". Sweden wasn't conquered either, but I don't bitch about it. Mainly because Scandinavia is also seen as "off shore", just like Britain. Other countries he didn't conquer are Russia, the European parts of Ottoman Turkey, Sardinia and Sicily.
The point is still that he dominated the European continent.
OnkelMickwald 1 year ago
@MaxRWF Don't be fucking stupid, Napoleon was a military dictator, his entire legitimacy as ruler was based on conquest and imperialism. Britain was already at war with France, Austria and Russia were not stupid enough to let him strike the first inevitable blow. What you're trying to argue is that Hitler is not a bad man because Britain & France declared war on him first for invading Poland.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
Napoleon was made Emperor through a popular plebiscite which make him much more legitimate than the Kaizer of Austria, the Tzar of Russia or the king of Britain. Napoleon never declared war. Even when he ridiculed the allied armies, he tried to make reasonable peace treaties 'cause he was seeking PEACE. Unlike the warmongering kings who were afraid to lose their power. Your comparison with hitler definetly ruined your argumentation, Napoleon spread the ideals of the French revolution, not hate.
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF There you go again, acting as if the King of Britain was the national leader. Not true! Napoleon gained popular support, then he seized on a few oppertunities and became a dictator, therefore not a democractic leader. Britain has been a democracy since the english civil war, which was 150 years before Napoleon.
I never said Napoleon spread hate. He was not as bad as Hitler. I was merely saying comparisions can be drawn.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
LOL when only 1% of the population can vote, this is NOT democracy, it's called oligarchy! All Frenchmen had several occasions to vote democratically, while Brits had to wait until 1919 !!! Under Napoleon, the son of a baker could become marshal of the Empire, while in Britain everything was determined by your birth. Napoleon may have lost, the ideals of the revolution have finally won. Even in the old aristocratic England, the son of a peasant, like you, can now become someone, if he works for.
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF Well, at least you know your history. There is a difference between Britain & France in culture. Since the civil war, Britain has technically been a democracy, although it is not a democracy in the sense we would describe it today.
It's kind of insulting that you call me the 'son of a peasant', since you know fuck-all about me. I could be related to the queen, for all you know. There are no longer sharp class divisions here.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
@ToaJoe
Yeah, well, it's not thanks to your English revolution that the class division is no longer sharp. It's rather thanks to the Napoleonic armies that revolutionized the traditional European society.
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF That's true. But I'm afraid Napoleon did not affect Britain. You're acting as if republicanism, democracy and civil rights were Napoleon's ideas...
My opinion of Napoleon is neither here nor there. On one hand, he was a brilliant general, but on the other hand he killed a lot of people, and he took democracy away from France.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
The main difference between the English revolution and the French one is that the latest was not only national, but universal. The French ideals affected directly or indirectly the entire Europe, hence the world. As an example, the Declaration of the Rights of Man has become the world's absolute standard of democracy. Napoleon is not guilty for the dead of these wars, as he never declared a single war. The guilt rests on the British oligarchy, the Austrian absolutism, the Russian autocracy...
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF Democracy and civil rights were not thought up by french revolutionists, they were merely put into practise, which had never happened before. When Mr. Bonaparte became a military dictator, he betrayed the idea of democracy.
Britain was already at war with France, they cannot be blamed for starting the napoleonic wars. The Austrians were rightfully threatened by Bonaparte, so you can't really blame them for defending themselves, the Russian declaration of war was not perticuarly justified
ToaJoe 8 months ago
@ToaJoe Napoleon was a "dictator" in the antic way : a legitimate ruler appointed in times of emergency (France was alone against the entire Europe).
Britain and Austria were at peace 7 times with France and betrayed every time peace treaties by gathering new offensive coalitions against France, while this county demanded nothing more than the respect of the status quo.
Russia was planning to conquer Poland.
But I suppose that these agressions were fully justified to your biased eyes...
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF Ah no no no, Britain never signed a peace treaty. Britain was the only coalition partner who was always at war with them. That is why Napoleon surrendered himself to the British after waterloo- he said they had been the 'most consistant' of his enemies.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
@ToaJoe Never heard of the peace of Amiens ? But you are right : although its military involvement was limited, Britain has spent a lot of money and energy to break the peace and destabilize Europe and bears the greatest responsibility for the 7 millions dead of the Napoleonic wars.
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF Oh, please shut the fuck up. You say stupid things and twist the facts in order to be controversial. You're actually sat here trying to tell me that Napoleon did not have a share of the blame for the wars, when his entire legitimacy as a leader was built on military conquest? Napoleon was a military dictator, he was in his place because of the army, he had to invade in order to sustain the support of the army, the rest of Europe realised this and declared war first, mainly out of defence
ToaJoe 8 months ago
Twisting? That's rich coming from someone with a rudimentary knowledge about history. Everything I said is proven, see "The Golden Cavalry of St-George" for the British destabilization of Europe. Napoleon was chosen to defend France from its enemies, not to conquer. Napoleon's conquests are just the result of the defeats of warmongering kings. Who gave a fuck when the English killed Charles I ? Nobody. So why on earth did Europe attacked France when it chooses to kill its king ? Pure agression.
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF No, you're just an idiot. Europe attacked France because Napoleon was clearly (any fool can work this out) planning to invade Austria. If he was a peace keeping protector, why the fuck was he a renouned general who climbed up the pole of politics until he was military dictator? Britain did not destabilize Europe, they were just in a massive imperial rivalry with France, again equally of France's making as it was Britain's.
ToaJoe 8 months ago
@ToaJoe Don't get insulting because you can't argue, read a fucking book instead. So, Napoleon planned to invade Austria because he was a renowned general ??? Your argument is crap. Get your facts right, Napoleon did everything possible to preserve peace with Austria. He even repudiated his beloved Josephine to marry the daughter of the Emperor of Austria, Marie-Louise. As you probably know, dynastic marriages were supposed to assure peace, at the time.
MaxRWF 8 months ago
@MaxRWF Napoleon didn't declare any wars, but he was certainly fucking provocative. He moved his armies right up to the borders of Austria. And he married Marie-Louise to humiliate Franz, you're bullshitting.
I'm sorry, but you cannot sit here and tell me that Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most famous figures in military history, was a peace keeping saint. You're just trying to be controversial.
ToaJoe 7 months ago
Napoleon was put in place to protect the gains of the Revolution that the European powers wanted to destroy. This required to repel their attacks. N. holds his reputation of a great general because he defended France's uncountable enemies for 20 years! Not sure your Wellington would have done better. Don't fool yourself, the purpose of the Coalitions was to put an end to the nascent democracy in France. The Coalitions have finally won and restaured a king in France. But it did not last ...
MaxRWF 7 months ago
@MaxRWF You're just a sad nationalist. It is sad when you defend your country to the point where you try to lie about a military dictator and call them a 'protector'. I don't try to defend Oliver Cromwell when he massacred the Irish, or defend jack the ripper, just because I'm British. Napoleon was not an evil man, but you are the biggest retard for trying to say he was a peace loving hippie. Wellington wasn't perfect, but at least he respected democracy.
ToaJoe 7 months ago
@ToaJoe I'm not saying N. was an angel, I'm just saying, he was a "dictator" in the antic way : a legitimate ruler appointed in times of emergency. Wellington was an aristocratic oligarch with contempt for his own soldiers, not a democrat. You're the retard : comparing N. with people which massacred a whole people or ripped women... You're ridiculous, you're just full of British nationalist propaganda. Wake up ! Read a book ! N. fought for liberty, not for the privileges of few, like Wellington.
MaxRWF 7 months ago 11
@MaxRWF Wellington was an aristocrat yes but so were most people in his position in the military back in those times. He fought for his country just like anyone else would have done. Wellington disliked his men becuase of the fact that most of them were criminals but at the siege of badajoz he openly wept when he saw the dead bodies of his men
aspiringdrummer17 7 months ago
Comment removed
Makashi11 1 month ago
@Makashi11 Wellington called his soldiers "scums", while Napoleon called his soldiers "my children". It's insulting to compare Napoleon to Wellington. How could Napoleon be a warmonger since he *NEVER* declared a single war, his conquests are just the result of the numerous defeats of the European warmonger kings, who were attacking France in the first place. Every time, peace treaties were violated by the European tyrants, who were afraid to lose their privileges. Read a damn book, please !
MaxRWF 1 month ago
Comment removed
Makashi11 1 month ago
@MaxRWF He never declared a single war, but as a General in France pre-his-military dictatorship he invaded Italy and Venice utterly unprovoked. The Western Powers thus reacted against aggressive foreign policy by attacking them once he had quickly risen to the top. You are being selective with the truth also - Napoleon had as much respect for his men as Wellington, whose 'scums of the earth' was not meant to be insulting but an innocent acknowledgment of the society most of his men came from.
Makashi11 1 month ago
@MaxRWF he *NEVER* declared a single war
Hmmm, does the Invasion of Russia ring any bells?
Makashi11 1 month ago
@Makashi11 I'm sure that if you read further,you'd know that Russia broke the peace of Tilsit and was preparing to conquer Poland. In this case, you should blame the *agressive policy* of Britain and France which attacked Nazi Germany for its invasion of Poland... One of the reason why Napoleon failed the Russian Campaign was that he refused to humiliate the tzar by crushing its armies when he had the occasion and that he lost time waiting for the tzar's response to his repeated peace proposals
MaxRWF 1 month ago
@MaxRWF One of the great reasons the Coalition powers were aggressive toward Napoleon was that they feared him and post-Revolutionary France. Napoleon made very little / no attempt whatsoever to assuage their fears and make it clear that, as you implied, he wanted only peace. Do you really think Europe wanted to spend all that money fighting VERY expensive wars for any other reason? Also stop assuming you know more than everyone else. Telling people to read is venomously pretentious.
Makashi11 1 month ago
@Makashi11 Of course the Tzar of Russia, the Kaiser of Prussia and the British oligarchy were freaked out by what had happened to Louis XVI! Regardless the number of poor soldiers who would die, the purpose of the Holy Alliance has never been other than to keep the privileges of few, to crush secularism, democracy and liberty. They only accepted peace when they thought the ideals of the French revolution were anihilated in 1815. But thanks God, these ideals finally overcame these tyrannies...
MaxRWF 1 month ago
@MaxRWF It is now clear that you are the one who needs to do a bit of reading. The outcome of the French Revolution, like Cromwell's England, like Stalin's Russia, like Gaddafi's Libya, was a spuring of the ideals on which the uprising were based and a creation of a far greater tyranny than had existed under Monarchy. This is symbolised in Napoleon going from First Consul to outright Emperor. Napoleon should have made clear he would not meddle in other countries' affairs. Otherwise? War.
Makashi11 1 month ago
@Makashi11 You're confusing everything: France fell into terror because it was attacked by all sides. It's not because there was terror in France that the nice little surrounding tyrannies decided to interveine. When England killed its king, nobody gave a fuck. But when France did, the entire continent attacked the new republic. The reason why European monarchies were so virulent against the French Revolution was because its ideals were universal and scared those tyrants.
MaxRWF 1 month ago
@MaxRWF By 'universal' you really mean 'internationalist'; and by 'internationalist', you really mean conquering the known world until the ideals YOU favour are spread across the globe. Is it any wonder the Coalitions intervened? And anyhow - post-revolutionary France had proved itself an aggressive foreign power. Napoleon himself led aggressive invasions of Italy and Venice - again, how can you blame the Coalition powers for pre-empting Napoleon's France before the demi-god got them too?
Makashi11 1 month ago
@Makashi11 Human rights are universal by nature, they are aimed at the whole mankind, unlike the Bill of right, by example, which is just valid for a single nation.The conquests of the French republic are the result of the defeat of the powers which attacked France in the first place, not because France wanted Moscow or Shangai to be a French city, don't be ludicrous! So blame the european tyrants for war! BTW,Italian patriots were very pleased to have their own State instead of being Austrian
MaxRWF 1 month ago
@MaxRWF You are truly the one who needs to read more. Long live the British Empire! Long live the Queen!
Makashi11 1 month ago
The only real invasion Napoleon ever planned, but never got to carry out was the invasion of Britain and his reason for this was, as others have already stated, because Britain would simply not leave him alone. They'd incite and bribe other contries into declaring war on France, break their treaties with France. The reason Napoleon took Venice for example was because Austria declared war on him, even though following their last war with him he had let them keep Venice and Illyria.
Hoekell 1 month ago
@MaxRWF Wellington greatly respected his own men, and always went out of his way to attend to their needs. His "contept" was the result of one quote taken massively out of context. He became the elected (unlike Napoleon) leader of his country, successfully campaigned for the french government to abolish the slave trade (something Napoleon never did) and introduced catholic emancipation. Napoleon was just a glory seeking tyrant who raped and pillaged half of Europe to feed his ego.
uafchris 2 weeks ago
@uafchris Wellington was a pompous nawab who was elected by oligarchs representing less than 1% of the British population. Napoleon coronation was approved through a universal plebiscite. Something your aristocracy will forbid until 1919! Wellington let his men pillage the Spanish town of Badajoz. Your oligarchy bribed Europe to fight the French revolutionnary ideals (which were threatening its interests) and to secure its own greedy colonial expansionism. Tyrants are not where you think!
MaxRWF 2 weeks ago
@MaxRWF Oh come off it. Napoleon seized power, he was never elected. Wellington didn't let his men pillage, he had extremely tough discipline and refused to let his men live of the land. Badajoz was a one off because he couldn't control them in the confusion. Napoleon let his men pillage all of Spain and Portugal, which was one of the reasons why the rebelled and invited the British in for help. Also Colonial expansion? What about Napoleon in Egypt? Or the War of Independence in Haiti?
uafchris 1 week ago
@ToaJoe WELLINGTON RESPECTED DEMOCRACY!? Are you High? Wellington would never favor something that would openly question the legitamacy of Noble peerages or any other titles.
rylege 6 months ago
@rylege Yes he did, you retard. If he supported the establishment he wouldn't have tried to persue Catholic rights!
ToaJoe 6 months ago
@ToaJoe Of course he was Irish! Has nothing to do with the institution of peerages!
rylege 6 months ago
@rylege Do you even understand the Irish conflict? He may have been Irish but he wasn't a Catholic. Extending Catholic rights was a disgraceful policy among the establishment, and it has brought down many prime minsters!
ToaJoe 6 months ago
Crazy lunatic midget with one nut.
royalsteven 2 years ago
Hitler ?
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago
Also:D
royalsteven 2 years ago
Keep in mind: Everybody is a child of his time. Of cause we don't understand war as we have the privilege of living without it (ok, I put some "minor" wars like the european/serbian and todays millitary actions in Afganistan away) for more than 60 years. And, looking on his battles, he is everything else as an idiot.
thmuellerdotnet 2 years ago
I can´t understand a word...but thank you(.:
JavertGermany 2 years ago
If i punched someone ,and didnt declared it, ive still punch them.
whitepointer2 2 years ago
That's how the British declared war on France in 1803, after accusing him of having the intention of punching them.
I recommend AJP Taylor's "How wars begin"
NapoleonCalland 2 years ago 2
Napoleon never declared a single war and imposed 5 times peace to the British, Austrian, Russian and Prussian warmongers.
He's not the monster as British propaganda portrayed him.
MaxRWF 2 years ago 3