was napoleon bonaparte a good or bad ruler?

Question

if so why!

Answer 1

Napoleon was a HUMAN ruler. In this he was good and bad. Mostly however he was a good ruler. These are the reasons why:

He was very very skilled in war. He could protect his country against almost anything. He was a magnificant law maker and administrator. He reorganised for efficiency the administration and disticts of France. He created the CODE NAPOLEON. Which gave and confirmed basic human rights and opportunities. He put more efficient people in positions of power: eg. Nicholas Davour as chief of police. He created the Marshalate and the legion of honour.

Under him, a pie maker could become a Marshal of France. They would have to serve him absolutely loyally. However he gave all men equal opportunity. He's was a fairly humane government and he ensured that trade prospered, people could walk the streets safely, they could sleep soundly in their beds and they all had the right of law. He brang France from the chaos of the Terror and the Directory to the stability and glory of the Empire. He was a humane, fair, efficient and grand ruler.

He did however have his bad points. He trusted too much in relations. He put his brothers upon the thrones of Europe despite many of their obvious ineptitude in the job. He favoured Charles Bernadotte to the point , because he was married to Desiere the sister of one of his brother's wives, that when Bernadotte betrayed him it was too late. In his Code Napoleon his stance on women was that they had to obey their husbands and his law reflected that accordingly. In short he was nepotistic and a out and out chauvinist. In fact the word chauvinist was derived from a soldier of his: CHAUVIN, who was so Napoleonic in his thinking that it has past down to us as an example of someone who is fanatical in their support of something.

He had his bad points. He wage a lot of war. But this was a case of other nations mostly attacking him( to restore the hated bourbons) and he smashing their armies. He did however repeatitly reject the peace offerings of the allies after Leipzig. But on the whole he was a good and well loved ruler. At least in France and the countries who supported her. And by most of the liberals in Europe and the world. And by the United States. And in fact he was on the whole a good ruler. In fact his name was so respected in France that a nephew of his was able to, because he bore the honoured and respected name of Louis NAPOLEON, become emperor of France.

In fact one hundred days after he was exiled on Elba he returned triumpantly with the blessing of most of the French people. Crowds gathered to greet and cheer him and it was only after the war began to set in and the allies come that he was getting a little unpopular as France had given of it's young men as no other nation had. He had his faults, but he also had many good points. He is universally respected by the world and particularly respected by France. He was after all human ruler who tried his best. Sometimes failing, mostly sucseeding. He left a magnificant legacy to in the example of tactics and strategy, French law, the Legion of Honour and the lessons of history. To sum in up: In western history their were three great philosophers,
Socrates. Plato and Aristocle. In western history there were three great commanders: Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon.

Answer 2

I like the characterization that Napoleon was the French Revolution's greatest son and its greatest traitor. Where was "libery" in Napoleon's police state? Where was "fraternity" in Napoleon's French-dominated European empire? Where was "equality" once Napoleon put a crown on his head?

Answer 3

It sounds like a good number of b.s. to me. you do not commit your self to one opinion or the different yet walk on the two factors of the aisle. you utilize a lot of generalization (many valuable modifications, a good number of countries, many countries) without being in any respect particular.