I don't get how we're supposed to feel about Napoleon. Was he a tyrannical aggressor or a man of the people?

Answer 1

It depends who you ask, and which period of his career you consider most significant.

A dynamic and briliant ruler, Napoleon fought corruption as hard as he fought the Brits.

Among his contributions are the rosetta stone, the "code naploleon" (still the basis of much European law), the metric system, France's system of "departmental" government, and the idea of attaching doctors to army units (to mention just a few things).

Napoleon's rule of France was characterized by wars, which he kept winning, followed by peace treaties, which he proposed, and which were usually generous, followed by a brief peace, during which the British government started whipping up the next war.

Britain bribed other European countries into these alliances - for which they invented income tax as a "temporary" expedient.

This was because a strong France threatened British imperial hegemony over the globe, and because the dangerous republican ideas might spread...

Eventually, of course, he failed to win a war, and the French got the King back. However three months later they welcomed Napoleon's rule - because they knew he was much better than the King - resulting in the Waterloo campaign.

In three months 100,000 Frenchmen volunteered to fight for Napoleon - and most had to walk hundreds of miles to do so.

As time went on he became less interested in civil matters and improving governance, and more careless with the lives of his troops - a certain cynicism crept in.

Answer 2

He would tell you he was a man of the people, but Napoleon was really a man looking out for Napoleon. He was a gifted genius in war and politics - and fairly good with law and economics. Perhaps his greatest gift was human psychology and the early use of propaganda. He wrote his own press releases or dictated what would go into them. Napoleon knew how to manipulate masses of people. We might admire him for his gifts. As for his being selfish and egotistical - depends on how great a sin that is to you. Napoleon is one of many, many rulers to fit that mold. The degree of success he had is fairly amazing. If you like winners, he was that for a long run - about 15 years. He was popular with his people when they were winning. Fans usually dwindle when you start to lose. What should you feel?
You should always be entitled to your own opinion - in America anyway. I am impressed by Napoleon - though I do not like how many people died in his wars. Wars don't start because of just one guy. (Though some people today might think that about President Bush - look back at the vote in Congress before the Iraq War began.) Napoleon could not have had power without a lot of people being willing to follow his orders. Of course the people who followed him would oppress the dissenters. It has always been that way in human history. Hitler was very popular in Germany until they started to lose in 1942.

Answer 3

"Man of the People"? Where on God's Green Earth did you get that?

That Corsican shrimp never, in his life, was a Man of the People. He constantly offended the bourgeoisie. He married a Creole, for pete's sake, and then serially cheated on her.

Napoleon lived for Napoleon. The only reason he was popular is that he Won.

With one or two exceptions. Those , however, were Doozys.

My vote: Tyrannical Egotistical Dictatorial aggressor.

Oh, right, and Emperor. Look how long that lasted. Sic Semper Gloria Mundi.

Answer 4

i'm a quick male. i don't be afflicted by a Napoleon complicated, in no way had a topic with top and consistently enjoyed jokes human beings stated approximately my top through fact it replaced into consistently in good nature. I did, although, have a "complicated" in that I longed to be bodily enhanced than i replaced into, and that i lifted weights on condition that i replaced into 14 years previous. This helped me out in many circumstances and jobs in existence, so it quite is the only "complicated" I had. I even have met some short adult males with a "Napoleon" complicated, yet maximum people who're short, generally have good attitudes. this is variety of of a stereotype, certainly. Are all Asian adult adult males over aggressive with jobs and practise? Are all black adult males thugs and espresso-lifes?

Answer 5

Any man who would be called Emporer is not a man of the people. Napoleon is but one out of a million people whose power went straight to their head. Now consider George Washington. He chose to lay down his power for the good of his country and his people. Think about that, no one knew in his time what a president should be like, so how far could he have gone if he wanted to? But he didn't. He was a man of the people.

Answer 6

I am a fan of Napoleon. He was a military genius, not ever seen since. He made some tragic miscalculations in Moscow, which led to his defeat. His victory turned into tragic loss, when the Russians set Moscow ablaze and he and his Army were forced to flee during a bitter winter.

Answer 7

he was definitely not a man of the people

Answer 8

You're supposed to determine that from what you've read about him.

Answer 9

tyrant