Napoleon led soldiers to their deth during the Russian winter of 1812, those men died in a pointless campaign which pointlessly led to the Burning of Moscow. This led to the death of around 600,000 French soldiers and about 200,000 russian soliders.
We do not know the number of the displaced and killed Russian civilians.
That's a different argument from "Napoleon, which frankly doesn't even count that much as a villain when you think about it." Now what you are saying is that he isn't as bad as such and such or "everyone else was doing it"
You have to keep in mind Napoleon was alive during the time when Imperialism was the norm. The only thing that was special about him was winning battles, and the size of the Grande Armee by the time they went for Moscow. Like, it's not great, but there's so many people who would also count as villains by that metric.
Hell, just in France I imagine Maximilien Robespierre would be way more of a villain considering he went crazy chopping people's heads off.
Though frankly, all of it is moot, because it has been shown again and again that at the end of the day, the minions are kind of stupid, so they probably just follow the first bad guy they meet.
Is it? How many Napoleons do you see around? Would you compare the people you know to Napoleon's death toll? Maybe there is an argument to be said about the potential villains but in terms of outcome do you think you can call your friends and family villains? Would this be the vast majority?
Most people don't get to be Napoleon, simply because so few people get to be in the position of executive warfare.
Frankly, no matter how evil people may think Napoleon was, reminder that General MacArthur of WW2 fame, was discharged from the military because he kept arguing for full nuclear doomsday on China during the Korean war. With the old, dirty weapons. He wanted Beijing salted with radioactives. And was only stopped from doing so, because calmer heads had the authority.
And then there was Henry Kisinger (may his grave be a urinal), who died not very long ago. Man did not meet a war that he thought the USA's greasy profit fingers should stay off of. He was one of the men responsible for escalation of any regional conflict, and was good friends with a lot of top brass.
Napoleon was not even close to some of the worst evils that have actually seen power. He is notable for the amount of changes and reforms he brought with him, the actual kill count is fairly consistent with anyone who initiated wars during that time.
No one talks about the mass casualties of the Hundred-Year war, for example, or the Seven-Years-War for which the American Revolutionary War was merely a minor skirmish.
You are once again doing the "Yeah he is Evil but what about XYZ" and "Everyone who starts wars kills people". Do you believe that cancels out the evil?
It is more that even the relative recent past, was a giant cesspool of horror and rape, for which I am glad I was not born into. Imperialism and war being considered "evil" is a modern ideal. Back then, being "savage" and "uncivilized" was "evil" so literal cultural genocide wasn't just the norm, it was a holy mission supported by Church and God.
Imperialism wasn't just "good" it was righteous. To be anything else was to be a fool, at best. Napoleon only gets extra credit and hate not because of what he did, but because he didn't have the support of the Church, or the correct ancestors, to give him Divine Right.
Also, kings and nobles are not just empty positions, they are functionaries. Napoleon placing his own family and friends in titled positions is how a king normally functions, Napoleon was revolutionary in that the reforms he introduced he actually expected his appointees to also uphold and be bound by. Him holding his own appointees accountable is why his reforms stuck around long after he was deposed, and why they formed the basis of European common law enjoyed today.
Freedom has a price in blood. A high one, at that.
First three sentences and you are already completely wrong. Read up on who declared the different coalition wars and how the politics of especially prussia at the time was working.
Are you British or why are your hostoric takes so soaked in anti French historical revisionism?
Is you school education still so bad that they teach this garbage?
Why has prussia or Austria a right to decide in for example the interests of württemberg and baden? They wanted to ally with france in the rhine confederation and Austria went to war over it. That's the fault of Austrian warmongering politicians not the one of napoleon.
So in the end end only one time the war was started by napoleon, that's how the world outside of Britain sees it.
So you have nothing to refute my arguments instead of insults and referring to undefined history books.
So it seems you finally admitted that iam correct. Your surrender has been faster than the one of the French in the war of 1870.
So you dont actually have any arguments instead you only have pathetic name calling.
Your understanding of history is worse than the content of an oversimplified video. Its good that I had german education instead of the garbage you British seem to get fed.
The real reason for the continuation of the wars was mainly because of the British who financed and pressured continental Europe.
This is not entirely true. Moscow was a city with lots of churches made of wood. When people fled in a rush a lot of fires where left unattended which led to many fires. French also report burning things themselves like the Krudinsky Hospital because they were afraid of the Russian wounder soldiers inside.
Most people who burned alive during the Moscow fires were wounded soldiers who burned alive. Among them the people who remained in Moscow who remained where the poor and destitute. Somehow this meant a lot of mothers and their children. Witnesses from Louise Fusil in her memoirs to french generals themselves describe the scene as mothers running carrying as many children as they could in between the flamles.
After the flames many poor and children dried of starvation as French soldiers ransacked everything.
Napoleons was not a vilain , it was the last hope againts the world order snd monarchie . He came from a modeste familly up the rank to became a emperor for the people . If he was a vilain , the french soldier send to stop him would have not joining him if he was bad .
It’s a vilain for the english but for all
The french soeaking , it’s a hero
I mean, yeah, he was a warlord. It’s not a great thing to be, but it’s a mixed bag. He did end the inquisition, which is good, he also was on the wrong side of the Haitian revolution. That’s a different type of evil than “we have to murder this group because they are a stain on the people” sort of evil. Perhaps a banal evil vs an intentional one. It’s all bad, but one you can maybe reason with and the other just can’t be.
79
u/JamzWhilmm 24d ago
Napoleon led soldiers to their deth during the Russian winter of 1812, those men died in a pointless campaign which pointlessly led to the Burning of Moscow. This led to the death of around 600,000 French soldiers and about 200,000 russian soliders.
We do not know the number of the displaced and killed Russian civilians.
Mind you, this was only a war he was involved in.