Napoleon Bonaparte: The Exception to the Rule. . .Why?

a reply to: tridentblue

That really is part of why I decided to write this one. It came up in class as a side thing, almost. Just a curiosity, and a joke about writing the instructor a paper about it.. Well, I figured, what the heck? I need the practice anyway and I was really curious. I ended up getting into the story too and the link list of sources I have in a bookmarks folder runs well over a printed page in college format citations. Just a fascinating story.

I almost felt a bit sorry for him in the end, as odd as that sounds. I mean they could never EVER let him go. The little twit started wars like it was a sport or something. lol.... At the same time, there was a human side that came out in the research. A very real one that isn't seen with other infamous names of the past, IMO. I think he really believed he was doing the right thing. That can't be confused with saying he was, of course..but I think he was actually sincere.

As noted, he did accomplish some things as an administrator that changed the face of France and in positive ways, I'd say. A real complex guy

Great Read! I humbly thank you for that, I learned a lot by reading it. I'm gonna read it again.

Why was Napoleon's life spared when so few other leaders during and before his time were ever allowed to leave office alive? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't understand the conclusion or the question? A quick glance at globe at the time of the Emperor's reign shows some 60 sovereign nations across the world. When you say "few other leaders" are you talking about Europe-France-Asia or the entire world. For instance the entire span of the 19th century in China not a single blood coup took place in the entire nation. I count 43 changes in government in one hundred years and all left office alive.

So, do you mean just France, or just Europe.

What a great thread! I enjoyed every minute of reading. I must say that the pony pictured with Napoleon in the first post must have been quite tiny.

a reply to: spooky24

I've been debating how to reply on this since it's a specific point to what was never a specific reference.

I think I can most easily say that my terminology regarding other leaders covers from Roman times to Saddam Hussein and all inbetween for who left office/positions of leadership within societies that did not have a strong and established history of peaceful transition. History is a bloody place in that way, and exceptionally so in specific instances.

I know of two Emperors who had the unfortunate experience of ingesting molten gold. One, reportedly, was alive for a brief time while it was poured down. The other? Well.. Rumor has it, he was stuffed and mounted (literally) in Persia others to view for quite some time following his golden departure. Those, of course, are just a couple of the more colorful examples.

True to form and consistent with the particular patterns of history here, Maximilien Robespierre was the individual ruling France and during an especially bad time, immediately before Napoleon came to power himself.

There was a transition period between where rule was handled first by the 'Directory' and then 'Consulate', in that order. Those represented leadership by multiple people serving together, but Robespierre was the individual before him. He was also removed by force and executed.

So, it is with some real curiosity that I first looked into how Napoleon could have avoided that fate twice...especially after literally losing multiple wars, and one of them being a war which touched or covered most of Europe, clear into Moscow...and back again into Paris itself.

Not only a complex guy, but a really fascinating one too.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Great read, you pretty much gave a good overview,

My favorite era, will have to go away and think (late here) and come back with my points.

But as for him not being excuted to but briefly for the time being, im pretty sure some argeement was settled before his surrender. He could of dragged the war on a few more months I think after waterloo and he still commanded a lot of love, killing him or dragging the war on could have been messy especialy if he managed to escape as he could of come back again.

Europe was tired of war and UK in particular suffering some heavy economic problems, everyone wanted a quick clean end to the war. In some I think its akin to emperor hirohito being pardoned after WW2, not because it was the right thing but easyist to aid post war recovery , sustain a lasting peace and try and gain some respect with aformer foe so as to possibly build a freindship with, which both the US did with Japan and Britain did with France. Both marked turning points in relations, britain and France more so as it ended near 500 years of on and off wars.

If we do look at it in the context of US/Japanese postwar recontruction then poor Marshal Ney gets the spot of scapegoat like Hideki Tojo!

Look at me I said id keep it brief and I go into one! Lol I just cant help myself with Napoleonic history!

Sorry about the spelling as Im writeing this on my Iphone....

Following the city of London financed American revolution the British East India company asset...George Washington...With the help of city of London asset Alexander Hamilton set up the first Central bank of the USA

1935 the reverse of the 1782 Great seal of the USA was put on the back of the 1 dollar banknote...The first time the reverse of the obverse was seen by the general public in 153 years



Following the city of London financed French revolution the city of London installed ruler of France Napoleon Bonaparte set up the current central bank of France in 1800

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen...Like the Constitution in the USA showed up in 1789 in France.

Great thread, I hadn't really looked into Napoleon beyond light reading, I was meaning to and you saved me the trouble, as I was reading about the Duke of Wellington the other week, described here as Napoleons Nemesis
link

I think it's a great companion piece to this.

Certainly an interesting and brutal time in history and not really that long ago.

Stuff like this is why I love ats, good read and very well put together! Always a person who fascinated me and definitely someone who changed the course of history.

a reply to: Slickinfinity

Always a person who fascinated me and definitely someone who changed the course of history.

And a hero to short people everywhere! He truly is! Of course he didn't like being short and sometimes made a fuss over it but still, considering everything else, he was on the shorter side of life.

To save you all looking it up, he was 1.68m or 5'5" tall. I don't really think that is short but he did.

P

Very nice read.
I picked up some odd knowledge about Napoleons Waterloo battle. It seems among the french cavalry that took over the English cannon none of them had any spikes left. Those spikes were there to disable the cannons they captured. They got run off the hill and the English retained the workable cannons.
My college philosophy teacher had another view on Napoleon. It seems he greatly preferred large 6 foot of taller soldiers for his army. He effectively removed the tall Frenchmen from the gene pool. The assertion is that is why they are smaller now than in the past.
The first item came out of a reference book. The second is open for debate.

Napoleon was not short- he was of average height for men at that time (5 ft.7 in.).
The myth amongst us english speaking peoples started because of a confusion with the french measurements of the time, in which he was 5 ft. 2 in.- the french inch being longer than the british inch.

I always had a rather negative idea given to me of Bonaparte when I was young, and was surprised when I came to France to find he was so loved and still considered one of the most amazing men of history here.

I believe I see your drift now. This is a good indication of why I was always such a horrible teacher. I was told that I graded persons work like a baseball statistic-all I ever cared about was the accuracy of the number-not the quality of the numeral accomplishment.

Anyway perhaps I can add to the emperor's legend. In a table talk on May 1st 1939 the Fuehrer dismissed Napoleon as 'that 'Corsican adventurer' and railed him for seeking fame instead of sound military policy.

In one of the last conversations in his life the Fuehrer ask Bragadefuhrer Mohnke- final commander of the government district on the morning of his last day alive- April 30th 1945- -if, perhaps he could hold out until May 5th. Mohnke replied that his last 1200 battle hardened SS troopers would run out of ammunition in a few hours-and looked stunted at the Fuehrer 's request was told that "All military commanders should hold dear the day of Bonaparte's death"

After moments of thought the Fuehrer added " perhaps, he was right all along"

Mohnke left the Fuherebunker telling the NKVD that he "wasn't the least bit interested in what the 'Corsican adventurer' was right about.


He also later added that he then decided not to fight to the death and surrendered himself and let his solders decided on their own their individual fate.

One thing about Napoleon I think many overlook is his Marshalls.

Napoleon would never have got too where he got without the likes of Louis-Nicolas Davout and Michel Ney et al. All his Marshall provided a balance and mix of personality and idea that Napoleon fed on. It when he started to mistreat his Marshall's and ignore them or let them run rampart things started to go wrong.

Louis-Nicolas Devout all but won some of Napoleons most famous battles for him! IE Battle of Austerlitz and Battle of Jena–Auerstedt.

Great presentation and well written. I've never really looked much into Napolean fro some reason. This has given me inspiration to delve deeper into his history.
I learnt a few things about him I didn't know.



S+F

a reply to: pheonix358

Napoleon being very very short was a myth or something brought up by the victors to make him seem inferior. He was actually 5'7 which was average for the time. He was seen as short to alot of people because his personal guard was handpicked for their height.

a reply to: crazyewok

I agree but Michel Ney is a very big reason Waterloo was lost. He rushed in with most of the french cavalry without infantry support

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Great thread.

As far as I'm aware Napoleon wasn't executed for the simple reason that it wasn't the norm back then and that he wasn't considered a brutal or repressive leader or ruler.
Napoleon never killed any of the rulers of the lands he conquered - they were either allowed to leave and go live in another country or given a small estate somewhere and allowed to live quite comfortably.

And as touched on, it is thought that Napoleon may have agreed to 'come quietly' and not to stir up trouble - he still had many supporters as is evidenced upon his return from his initial exile.

When Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to France and raised yet another army this was considered something of a betrayal and 'bad form'.
Hence his exile to St Helena one of the most isolated places on earth.
Here he was treated with minimal courtesy and luxury and he often complained about his 'harsh treatment'.

There were several attempts to free Napoleon from St Helena, none of which had any sort of success.
Napoleon proved a bit of a thorn in The Crown's side with even some noble and noted politicians raising his case in Parliament.

Some believe Napoleons eventual death due to 'stomach problems' - now attributed to stomach cancer by mainstream Academia - was as a direct result of poisoning by those who wished him to simply disappear quietly.

Napoleon was indeed a remarkable man and his achievements should not be under-estimated.
He was neither the evil villain that some have us believe nor was he the genius others portray him as.
As with most, if not all, of history's great people I suspect there was an element of both within him.

If I am to be honest I've got to say that Napoleon is given nothing but 'bad press' here in the UK - for obvious reasons.
Rightly or wrongly, and I know its a massive generalisation, but I'd say that as a nation we are still extremely distrustful and suspicious of the French as a whole - and it cuts both ways.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree but Michel Ney is a very big reason Waterloo was lost. He rushed in with most of the french cavalry without infantry support

Of course, not one of his finest moments. Which is a example of Napoleon failing to reign his Marshalls in.

Excellent! Shakespeare put it best, "the good is often interred with their bones." One exception, he was exiled due to taking the title of Emperor and having had an official coronation. The Crown Heads of Europe were not about to executed a "Royal" despite their personal opinions of the Little Corporeal. Especially with the execution of the prior royal family still a fresh memory.