Napoleon

I was raised with you view, but then started absorbing the Anglo-Saxon perspective on Napoleon.

The man's actions seem closer to those of a dictator.

At the same time, he did spread the ideals of the French Revolution and the legal changes of the French code throughout Europe.

An interesting question is, how many of the positive legacies that we commonly attribute to Napoleon came from him and how many were the result of the spirit of the French revolution?

One could argue that Napoleon rode a wave of change that was going to happen in any case. At the same time, I am sure that Napoleon must have been the main architect of many of his deeds.

Since I am not an expert on Napoleon, I will let other with more knowledge answer the question.

I think the same thing as you. I suppose he is one of the most complex people in history.

Temujin:

Bonaparte was not responsible for genocide or death camps, or mass starvation as a weapon (like in U.S.S.R. in 1930s), but the turmoil of war from 1792 to 1815 was the result of The Revolution that Bonaparte personified after about 1796.  Due to strong resistance, The Revolution could only be spread by force, other than in the Netherlands and the Rhineland.

Possibly 2,000,000 Frenchmen were lost in these wars, and who knows how many Russians, Austrians, Prussians and other Germans, not to mention Spanish, Italians and English.  Many perished, and Bonaparte was the most prominent leader of this time period.  Much responsibility rests with him and his policies, but the long term results of The French Revolution were of course very positive. 

Napoleon was imperialist, but played an important role in the French Revolution. I don`t know what to think.
And about those deaths, he was "punished" for them!

The wars of the French Revolution lasted, with few interruptions, from Valmy in 1792 to waterloo in 1815.  Due to the nature of Bonaparte's strategic method, that is the DESTRUCTION of the opposing army on the field, battles were enormously destructive of manpower.

Armies on campaign were still subject to loss from exposure, disease, and desertion.  The Grande Armee that invaded Russia in 1812 consisted of about 600,000 soldiers including Bavarian and Austrian auxilliaries allied (temporarily) with France.  Probably 500,000 of these died during the campaign.  On the field at Borodino, 60,000 Russians were killed.  The Bavarian Corps of 25/26,000 lost 80% of their men.  As Russia fought a "scorched earth" campaign, many civilians were left destitute and without shelter in the Russian winter.  No one knows how many of them perished.

Who was the responsible party?...the Russians did not invade themselves.

As the social changes in France matured, each year saw the conscription of sizeable numbers of soldiers (citizens at first/cannon fodder later) and as many as 100-200,000 were conscripted each year.  Of course some professionals became veterans who served for many years, but the wastage was great in Spain and in Russia.  As far as the biggest battles at Austerlitz (1805), Jena (1806), Friedland (1807), Aspern-Esslingen (1809), Wagram (1809), Borodino (1812), Leipzig (1813) and Waterloo (1815), there were routinely 35-50,000 killed on each side!  The armies were larger and were used more aggressively by France, and the other powers imitated them.  There were something like 100 battles total not counting all other casualties that would have resulted in deaths.  For the unfortunate soldier, it does not matter how he dies, he is still dead.

Obviously, in most cases, the majority of soldiers in the field and on campaign generally survived...the Russian campaign was a disastrous exception.  Whoever motivated this must bear the responsibility.  Bonaparte was a great general, a good administrator, a pretty good diplomat, and probably the greatest "man of action" ever, but a lot of people paid for that with their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 there were routinely 35-50,000 killed on each side!

read my post above!

Vlad:

See if you can find the following at the library:

David Chandler.  "The Campaigns of Napoleon"  (Wars and operations) 

Robert Elting.      "Swords Around a Throne"  (about the French army)

R. Elting & V. Esposito  "Atlas and History of the Napoleonic Wars" compiled for the U.S. Military Academy Dept. of Military Art & Engineering.  A very good source with all the maps and detailed descriptions and analysis of the campaigns and major battles.

Have fun! 

 

 

is my nationality of any importance?

Originally posted by pikeshot1600 The wars of the French Revolution lasted, with few interruptions, from Valmy in 1792 to waterloo in 1815.

There is a not unreasonable case to be made that the "French Revolution" lasted some 80 years - from the outbreak in 1789 to the establishment of the Third Republic, which then lasted some 70 years - almost as long as the preceding period of turbulence.

Those 80 years included three monarchic periods (a brief attempt at constitutional monarchy under Louis XVI, a return to the Bourbons under Louis XVIII, and another fling with constitutional monarchy under Louis Philippe), a short-lived republic under Robespierre and co., a dictatorship under Napoleon, two Napoleonic empires (Napoleons I and II), with a short-lived Second Republic after 1848, with each stage lasting an average of ten years. A long-lasting bounce from one revolution to another.

And that doesn't include the Paris Commune.

The most dangerous moment comes with victory.
                                                                         �Napoleon Bonaparte