Do you think Napoleon was a good leader?

Question

I have to write an essay but I don't know if i should write the positives about him or negatives

Answer 1

It depends on what aspects of leadership you focus on. He was an exellent military commander and was one of the first to make extensive use of a battlefield's terrain to his advantage. I believe some of his ideas and inovations in warfare are still tought at West Point. He inspired his solders mostly by his bold plans, very effective use of his talented officer corps, and reputation for winning many battles, despite the odds.
As a politian and dictator, he was not a good leader. He tried to micro-manage France and made almost all the decisions in government while he was in office. This led to terrible corruption and mis-management by his family members he installed as 'rulers' in many of the conquered lands. There was also an economic disaster that effected all of Europe for close to 20 years due to his 'Continental' policies which attempted to hurt England but ended up hurting continental Europe even more.

Answer 2

Well, you wouldn't be doing a very accurate report if you wrote just about the positives or just about the negatives. That would slanting history, not telling the truth.

The truth is that he had positives and negatives, just like every other human being in the world.

On the positive end, he was undoubtedly the best commander of his age (even Wellington himself admitted it). He fought and won more battles than Alexander the Great or Hannibal (statistically speaking).

His revolutionary tactics are what allowed him to become politically active and rise to power.

He was also a great politician, despite what some people say. The Napoleonic Code is still the system for French law and was remarkable in its age. He was the most powerful man in Europe and just because he was good at beating his enemies does not make him a bad leader.

Also, most importantly for his country, France would not survive were it not for Napoleon. In the midst of the chaos during the French Revolution, Britain, Austria, and Prussia were bearing down on France. Were it not for Napoleon's victories (and the combined effort of other French commanders), France would be conquered and divided between the three empires of Britain, Austria, and Prussia.

The millions of deaths during the Napoleonic wars are actually more attributable to Britain than Napoleon. If you look at all of Napoleon's wars, there was only one time he declared war (Egypt). Of the other ten or so, other European nations declared war on Napoleon (from French Revolution to the Waterloo campaign). Britain constantly instigated war with France by bribing other European empires and breaking treaties. This is something most people neglect to research so please read on this and get it right.

On the negative end, soldiers did nonetheless die under his command. He also censored newspapers and for his own reasons chose to persecute Jacobins rather than Royalists.

I guess it speaks for itself that was the absolute ruler of France. But more interestingly, it was both a good and bad thing.

So, write about both. That would be telling the truth.

Answer 3

He restored forward progression in a placed up-revolution, decaying united states, and presented empire to a "flagging" France via conquering a great number of Europe, until now at last succumbing to palace intrigue and the Prussians/English defeat at Waterloo. premier to a Prussian ascendance culminating (concerning France) interior the Franco-Prussian conflict in 1871, the place the Prussians annihilated France, and persisted to realize this for the subsequent a million/2-century. Napoleon became a great admirer of Fredirick (Friedrich) the great of Prussia, and reported publicly to his adult adult males that - if Frederick have been nevertheless alive, he (Napoleon) could be his inferior. Prophetic words - it became no longer long after that he suffered his superb defeat on the palms of the Prussians/Brits. Napoleon believed Frederick the great to be the main suitable strategist in background, and accompanied a lot of his practices and strategies. After Napoleon's defeat, France entered a protracted slide for greater beneficial than a century. this is modern-day chief, Sarkazy, seems to be the main decisive and strong chief considering Napoleon. Time will tell.

Answer 4

Do you remember what Napoleon did in Russia in 1812?
Before leaving Moscow, Napoleon gave orders to have the Kremlin and all public buildings either blown up or set on fire.
Several Man and Women and children died. It was a really sad event in Russia.

Answer 5

He was an excellent leader, a masterful tactician on the battlefield, brought a lot of new concepts to mainland Europe such as constitutions, and rallied France from it's darkest time (and France has had quite a few "dark times" in history). The bad side was he forced his reforms through war, and censored the media, silencing anyone who spoke out against him.

Answer 6

I betcha this is for Mr Holland SS class u mother ******,
well with that said
napolean was a wack *** military emporer, he one 1 battle agaist prussia russia britian and austria and lost all the ******* rest brit vs france, russia vs france ,and brit russia prussia and some other countries vs france, so he won one major one and he loss all the other(when he was emporer battles)
if you ask me i dont get how "brilliant of a military leader he was"
but i have to say his napolanic code and he domestic policy was a great thing to do
1) fairness
2) movement to perfection
well thats pretty much it