Print Page | Close Window

Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Rate Kings and Emperors
Forum Discription: Talk about the kings and emperors and rate them!
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32243
Printed Date: 26-May-2018 at 05:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Subject: Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:14
Love him or loath him, Napoleon Bonaparte is a conversational figure in history. This is your opportunity to have your say on the man and how he conducted his life.


 

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on 15 August 1769 in Corsica into a gentry family. Educated at military school, he was rapidly promoted and in 1796, was made commander of the French army in Italy, where he forced Austria and its allies to make peace. In 1798, Napoleon conquered Ottoman-ruled Egypt in an attempt to strike at British trade routes with India. He was stranded when his fleet was destroyed by the British at the Battle of the Nile.

France now faced a new coalition - Austria and Russia had allied with Britain. Napoleon returned to Paris where the government was in crisis. In a coup d'etat in November 1799, Napoleon became first consul. In 1802, he was made consul for life and two years later, emperor. He oversaw the centralisation of government, the creation of the Bank of France, the reinstatement of Roman Catholicism as the state religion and law reform with the Code Napoleon.

In 1800, he defeated the Austrians at Marengo. He then negotiated a general European peace which established French power on the continent. In 1803, Britain resumed war with France, later joined by Russia and Austria. Britain inflicted a naval defeat on the French at Trafalgar (1805) so Napoleon abandoned plans to invade England and turned on the Austro-Russian forces, defeating them at Austerlitz later the same year. He gained much new territory, including annexation of Prussian lands which ostensibly gave him control of Europe. The Holy Roman Empire was dissolved, Holland and Westphalia created, and over the next five years, Napoleon's relatives and loyalists were installed as leaders (in Holland, Westphalia, Italy, Naples, Spain and Sweden).

In 1810, he had his childless marriage to Josephine de Beauharnais annulled and married the daughter of the Austrian emperor in the hope of having an heir. A son, Napoleon, was born a year later.

The Peninsular War began in 1808. Costly French defeats over the next five years drained French military resources. Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812 resulted in a disastrous retreat. The tide started to turn in favour of the allies and in March 1814, Paris fell. Napoleon went into exile on the Mediterranean island of Elba. In March 1815 he escaped and marched on the French capital. The Battle of Waterloo ended his brief second reign. The British imprisoned him on the remote Atlantic island of St Helena, where he died on 5 May 1821.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bonaparte_napoleon.shtml - http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bonaparte_napoleon.shtml



-------------
What a handsome figure of a dragon. No wonder I fall madly in love with the Alani Dragon now, the avatar, it's a gorgeous dragon picture.



Replies:
Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 21:18
A brilliant man. Not just in military matters but law and mathematics and many others. As a military commander he was supreme and his foes acknowledged this. The code of laws known as the Napoleonic Code are still used today.

-------------


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2012 at 22:49
Given his era; his likes had not been seen since the great Frederick. And he remains constantly in the 'top five' of great soldiers by historians to this day. His most serious character flaw.. ie. His individual megalomania and ego, later in his career, directly led to his ultimate downfall. But his accomplishments as a soldier and ruler of France marked him far above the average description as tyrant and dictator he is so often labelled with.
 
 
 
Consequently from Chandler to Elting to Jomini and Ludwig throwing in Weider and Esposito among his numerous biographers and scholars; not to mention Johnson and Schom and Ross who comments superbly on his use of maneuver warfare; his reputation as a fighting man remains nearly peerless.
 
The loyalty he inspired in the common soldier, misguided or other as opined by the psycho-babbler revisionist haters of him, was without doubt also a key element in his success. Lee and Jackson came close but were pale shades in comparison.
 
And if you don't believe it then review the Battle of Eylau. Where he was essentially beaten. And yet the heroics of Augerau's Corp and Davout's magnificent force march in a howling and blinding blizzard to break the Russian left coupled with Murat's charge into the middle saved him his claim of victory. In  seriously studying 500 years of military battle and history...very few things compare to it....and like the epic defense and delay at St Vith under Bruce C. Clarke. Or Ney's rearguard on the Moscow Retreat....It remains astonishing.
 
Nobody.....with perhaps caveats for Alexander and Caesar, not even Lee or Washington, got that from his men. Except the 'little corporal'.
 
 
Genius? yes. And a lot more.
 
 
Egomaniac? yup and a lot more.
 
He remains the last of the Great Battle Captains.
 
I salute him.


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Don Quixote
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 04:26
I like him a lot - interesting ideas, not only as a general, but as a political man. Lots of fire and thrust, lots of dreams - I can respect that. I vote "great".

-------------


Posted By: Windemere
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2012 at 14:10
Napoleon Bonaparte's Y-chromosome DNA was recently analyzed, and it's believed that it derives originally from Middle Eastern Saracen (Arab) ancestry. From there it spread to the Maghreb in North Africa, from there to Italy, and from there to Corsica. Italian immigrants have probably spread it into the countries to which they've immigrated.

-------------
Windemere


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2012 at 12:47
Some of the better references, sites and resources, on the Emperor.
 
 
 
http://napoleonic-literature.com/ - http://napoleonic-literature.com/
 
http://www.napoleon.org/en/home.asp - http://www.napoleon.org/en/home.asp
 
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/napoleon.html - http://www.historyguide.org/europe/napoleon.html
 
http://www.napoleonguide.com/ - http://www.napoleonguide.com/
 
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/napoleon.htm#duches - http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/napoleon.htm#duches


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Ramses XXIII
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2012 at 13:37
Love him since 5th standard, have been fascinated with him since then. I have read his AutoBiography. Payed games based on his campaigns. sometime just can't get over.

France saw a great revolution under his LEADERSHIP.


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2012 at 15:05
24 caret arsehole

-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 23-Sep-2012 at 15:10
Not exactly but he wasn't always a nice person

-------------


Posted By: Cheops
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 10:21
I think he was a brilliant man, with his code Napoléon and his introduction to surnames(at least here in the Netherlands he did). His ideas were revolutionary but I think it is good he was defeated at Waterloo because he would have become too powerful if he won.

-------------
In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons. -Herodotus


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 10:35
Waterloo essentially din't matter at all.

-------------


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 10:55
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially din't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 11:26
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially don't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.
 
Yup.. because in the final analysis Wellington wasn't winning Waterloo... until Blucher won it for him.Wink
 
 
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/waterloo.html - http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/waterloo.html


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 11:31
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially don't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.
 
Yup.. because in the final analysis Wellington wasn't winning Waterloo... until Blucher won it for him.Wink
 
 
http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/waterloo.html - http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~awoodley/regency/waterloo.html

Very true, CV, but there must have been something about Wellington that had seven nations coming forward for him to run their armies.


Posted By: Toltec
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 12:06
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially don't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.
 
Yup.. because in the final analysis Wellington wasn't winning Waterloo... until Blucher won it for him.

By this analyses, Napoleon lost almost every battle he fought until he was saved by a late arriving force commanded by a marshal on the enemy flank.

Fact is both Wellington and Napoleon had the rare ability to pull off well timed pincer movements on the enemy, Waterloo was one such. 


-------------
Stupidity got us into this mess, why can't it get us out?

http://historyplanet.wordpress.com - History Planet Website
<br /


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 13:24
Originally posted by Toltec

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising

Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially don't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.
 
Yup.. because in the final analysis Wellington wasn't winning Waterloo... until Blucher won it for him.

By this analyses, Napoleon lost almost every battle he fought until he was saved by a late arriving force commanded by a marshal on the enemy flank.

Fact is both Wellington and Napoleon had the rare ability to pull off well timed pincer movements on the enemy, Waterloo was one such. 
 
 
 
Not the point I am making to Waterloo....but it was exemplary effort to defend the old Duke's shortcomings that day.
 
As to the latter correct; but that's more a factor of Bonaparte's use of 'maneuvering to gain the central position' strategically and then rejoining of separated forces, tactically, at the moment of decision ie. initial commitment. Which Wellington never was a master of.


-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 19:54
Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially din't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.


Nope his loss was inevitable after he returned from Elba.

-------------


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 19:56
Blucher's attack was NOT planned. He arrived oportunely not as part of a plan or schedule.

-------------


Posted By: TheAlaniDragonRising
Date Posted: 25-Sep-2012 at 21:25
Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Originally posted by TheAlaniDragonRising


Originally posted by Delenda est Roma

Waterloo essentially din't matter at all.
Somehow I think it probably did matter to the boneys.


Nope his loss was inevitable after he returned from Elba.
Are you saying you don't think it mattered to his own fighting men?


Posted By: Delenda est Roma
Date Posted: 26-Sep-2012 at 06:33
I'm saying his chances of winning after Elba were close to nil.

-------------


Posted By: LeopoldPhilippe
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2015 at 20:02
At school, Napoleon gained a reputation as intelligent and determined, with a good memory and a flair for mathematics that directed him towards a career in the artillery via the royal military school in Paris.


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2015 at 20:46
And if you wish to learn more then you should begin with the all time classic primer; by David G Chandler.

There have been many notable works by some distinguished scholars on the 'little corporal'.. but almost half a century later there's still none finer.

'The Campaigns of Napoleon'
DG Chandler



-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2015 at 19:20
& given NB's reputation 200 years ago..
..compared to today..

Will Adolf Hitler be seen to be rehabilitated, similarly - by 2145?

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 03:41
Considering that NB never advocated or prosecuted mass genocide of varying ethnics-religious or political groups...even to the remotest level; if at all possibly comparable to the other...he's safe.

AH? Nope...not unless ya an anti-Semitic-gay hater-handicapped despiser- Aryan racist purist theorist.

The primary difference is that NB with all his faults was a military genius and a fairly lenient despot once his position was secure; while AH was a looney tune, foiking idjit....unless of course....

ya an anti-Semitic-gay hater-handicapped despiser-Aryan racist purist theorist.


I'm fairly confident in this because I've read both my Chandler and my Shirer to mention but a few.

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 04:21
Actually, ol' Adolf saw himself as a latter day NB, & duly paid homage to his tomb..

Perhaps NB had seen enough of the doctrinaire excesses of the revolution with their class genocide.. but none-the-less he caused death aplenty for Frenchmen of military age, plus that & misery too
for foreigners, (just like AH,)..

& both came a cropper, by going after Russia - without having neutralised the British..

AH in fact did not meet the criteria for a psychiatric disablement ( his mental issues were akin to a PETA-like vegetarian/animal rights/tee-totaller), & too much prescribed junk..

& AH remained fairly modest personally, not festooning himself with spurious unearned medals, awards, crowns & the like..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: LeopoldPhilippe
Date Posted: 14-Jun-2015 at 20:43
Once a week, Napoleon's librarian would be summoned to attend him with recently published books for him to glance through.       
Napoleon would throw on the ground those books which did not interest him. He would put aside one or two books to read.


Posted By: Sidney
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2015 at 16:34
What happened to the ones he discarded. Did they become 'unpopular' and sales dropped. Were the books still housed in Napoleon's library, despite his disinterest?


Posted By: J.A.W.
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2015 at 23:06
Maybe NB gave himself the role of Chief Censor, & personally reviewed contentious stuff.. did he keep de Sade on the banned list?

AH certainly viewed himself as an artist/art critic..

-------------
Be Modest In Thyself..


Posted By: samwil
Date Posted: 11-May-2016 at 10:14
Hi i dont know if anyone can help,  I have a bronze seal that bears the  Coat of Arms Second French Empire (1852–1870, would anyone know who used this seal, my question is does it belong to the Bonaparte Family and would it be only them that could use this seal

Thanks for looking, sorry i can add a pic as its in jpeg so it wont allow it




Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 27-Jul-2016 at 13:07
http://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/the-symbols-of-empire/

-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

S. T. Friedman


Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'



Posted By: IanZonja
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2018 at 05:41
A brilliant man. Not just in military matters but law and mathematics and many others. As a military commander he was supreme and his foes acknowledged this. The code of laws known as the Napoleonic Code are still used today.




Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com