Guns Of Icarus Online
Off-Topic => The Lounge => Topic started by: Indreams on November 19, 2014, 12:21:53 am
-
I am a Korean student in America currently studying European History.
The class just began covering the French Revolution. As there are many Europeans in GOIO community, I wanted to ask this question.
What do you guys think of Napoleon Bonaparte?
I consider him an epitome of self-made man. I take a similar stance as Emerson when I say he was the representative of Enlightenment Europeans.
I'm sure others would have justified, valuable views on Napoleon. I would like to hear other views.
Btw, moderators, feel free to lock this thread if it becomes over political or disrespectful to other members.
Thank you for reading,
Indreams
-
OH THIS IS SO INTERESTING
I love it when people from other places learn about historical figures for the first (?) time. It's so interesting to hear the perspectives without all the cultural baggage
I can't speak for all Americans, but from my understanding, Napoleon's stereotype (which I would assume we got from the British) was that of a short tempered and shot in stature fellow. A stout, grouchy man with an inferiority complex. I suppose more scholarly folks would say different, because stereotypes are usually wrong (as they are in this case). I wouldn't agree he was a representative of the enlightenment, though. When I think "Enlightenment", I'm instantly drawn to Descartes and Hume and Locke and Kant and all the other brilliant thinkers of that time and the philosophical movements and the changes in religion. Less from a military perspective, and more from a thought perspective, but this could be my classical education clouding my perception of history, once again >_<
Super interesting post :D
-
As every human being he had certain flaws, as far as I remember well what I learned myself a few years ago? He had a good start with tactics, but with every battle he was getting more and more arrogant. The summit of his arrogance was at Waterloo, when he decided to take a nap, as in his own consideration the battle was already won and there was nothing to screw up, so he gave command to one of his lieutenants. Well, guess what. Cavarly chasing infantry behind the hill - shit, it can't be trap, right? Nooooo they're so beaten. Oh, carronades are standing there OH SHIT.
I remember also that he was known for being rather impetuous and bad tempered.
-
I'm not the best at history, but have been to almost every castle in the Slovak Republic, so if your studies take you the central Europe (I imagine you'll touch upon Elizabeth Bathory) I may be able to help out with some local folk lore. :)
-
What I remember most clearly about him is the funny anecdote when someone once commented about his height (Napoleon was a short fellow).
The person said, "I am at least a head taller than you".
To which Napoleon pulled out his sword (or was it a dagger?) and said, "Well, we can easily remedy that.."
Not sure if that really happened, but it is a well-known historical anecdote. :D
-
Now that is wit! :)
Oh if you wanted something historically inaccurate, the BBC included Napoleon in a series Heroes and Villains, It tells the story of Napoleon's part in the Siege of Toulon in 1793... Though not greatly accurate, it does give some good insight :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_(2007_film)
-
He was a very strong personality indeed.
He conquered half of Europe (or as it was said back in time, half of the world), but failed to Russian cold winter.
How a brilliant strategist like him could not take such thing into consideration? Or he knew it, but did not cared?
Napoleon's attemt on conquering Russia is a story of how a small mistake may ruin an outstanding ambition. Despite he was an agressor to my country, I failry sympathise the Corsican guy.
-
Not sure if that really happened, but it is a well-known historical anecdote. :D
Men those days were shorter than today. He wasn't really standing out in terms of height. I suppose it's rather a piece of propaganda spread by his enemies, to ridicule him as leader.
He conquered half of Europe (or as it was said back in time, half of the world), but failed to Russian cold winter.
How a brilliant strategist like him could not take such thing into consideration? Or he knew it, but did not cared?
Khem, khem, as I said:
He had a good start with tactics, but with every battle he was getting more and more arrogant.
I suppose arrogance and "I'M INVINCIBLE" ( he he he ) attitude is enough. :P
-
I feel like he's a bit more of a LEEEEEERRROOOOYYY JEEEENNKKKIIINNNSSS kind of guy so he just charges in swinging an army and obliterating them, up until he hits something that he doesn't expect, where he crumbles.
Again, generalization of media outlets and 5-years-ago texxtbook knowledge that faded from my mind 5 years ago...
-
Whoa, very different views indeed! :)
What I most like about Napoleon is that he was frequently seen in the front lines, something that can't be said for many other leaders.
But its also true he was a megalomaniac and returned France to absolutism.
Hmm... I'll take you guy's opinions into account as I study Napoleon.
Any other opinions are still welcome. I'm enjoying this thread immensely.
-
I happen to like the guy.
He did a LOT of work, and conquered quite a bit. We can learn much from his example. Like "Don't invade Russia in the winter" and "Don't sell a single country most of a continent" and that taking over the world is totally cool, until you lose. And then there was the time he stood in front of the entire french army after returning from exile, dared them to shoot him, and they all promptly joined him.
-
Oh, and BTW, he isn't as short as people think he is.
Napoleon's height in English meters is 5" 2, but French meters at the time were slightly larger, marking Napoleon as 5" 7, which by today's standards is somewhat short. At the time though, 5" 7 was slightly above average.
Of course, with France conquering all of Europe, England was all "LOL is such tiny" and kept the joke running for a long time.
-
I happen to like the guy.
He did a LOT of work, and conquered quite a bit. We can learn much from his example. Like "Don't invade Russia in the winter" and "Don't sell a single country most of a continent" and that taking over the world is totally cool, until you lose. And then there was the time he stood in front of the entire french army after returning from exile, dared them to shoot him, and they all promptly joined him.
History just says "Don't invade Russia, unless you're coming from Asian side"
-
*Cough* *Cough* year 1610.
-
Year 1610... um... Galileo discovers the moons of Jupiter? Jamestown, Virginia?
-
Sorry, I'm not too good at Polish history,
Polish-Muscovite War, Polish-Lithuania defeats Russians and Swedish. Polish troops occupy Moscow. Right?
I just looked it up. How come they don't teach this in my History classes?
Stupid Eurocentrism always ignoring the non-French, non-British, and non-American history.
-
We conquered Moscow, but were fucking stupid, and lost it not-so-long-time-later.
-
Every nation is going to teach history most relevant to them.
I doubt there's as much Euro history being taught in, say, South-east Asia.
-
True true.
Can nobody hold on to Moscow but the Russians?
Anyways, to get back on topic, what do you guys think Napoleon's downfall was?
His invasion of Russia? His attempt to reign in Haiti? His wars and debts? His arrogance? Or the fact that he didn't use airships?
Cause I think it was the airships.
-
It's actually very polite to say nations teach by relevence, it's a very biased use of the teaching system to ignore a lot of historical events, everything I learnt about WWII was all England and German, if you ignored geographic locations you'd have not known it was a world war...
American schooling often twists and hides many historical events... Many countries do it, even if it's for the 'right' reasons history should not have chapters hidden or else how can a people learn from the mistakes of it's predecessors?
As for Napoleons failing, that'll boil down to his lack of technological advancements (aka airships) is what done it, teas naught to do with Russian Winter ;)
-
True true.
Can nobody hold on to Moscow but the Russians?
Anyways, to get back on topic, what do you guys think Napoleon's downfall was?
His invasion of Russia? His attempt to reign in Haiti? His wars and debts? His arrogance? Or the fact that he didn't use airships?
Cause I think it was the airships.
Well, naturally, aside from the airships I'm reasonably certain it was his firm desire to conquer all of Russia in one campaign that was going to go through winter no matter what.
You don't just INVADE RUSSIA in the winter. There's a reason the only strategy they needed for a very long time was "Run from the enemy and burn everything behind us until the winter murders all of them"
-
I second Ultimate Pheer. The biggest mistake Napoleon did was to think that he could invade and take over Russia. What Russia does best is survive in the harsh condition. Napoleon's army was not ready and did not have the equipment to attack Russia. They lacked proper clothing and supplies to survive in the Russian winter. Not to mention the Russian's Scorched Earth tactic made it impossible for Napoleon to resupply along the way to Moscow. The Russians burned everything and killed their own people as they retreated. All of this just to impair their enemy and keep them from getting supplies. The Russians were very good at using this tactic and even used it during WWII against the Nazi's. This failed attempt crippled Napoleons army and left his army in pieces. Out of the original 615,000 soldiers who went on the campaign, only 110,000 made it back to Paris. Napoleon lost his strength because of his foolishness in invading Russia.
-
All of this just to impair their enemy and keep them from getting supplies. The Russians were very good at using this tactic and even used it during WWII against the Nazi's.
The most funny about this statement is, that Nazis could have reach Moscow even before winter, which was Fuhrer's plan.
But guess what?
RUSSIAN ROADS. I mean - NO solid roads, or anything CLOSE to solid roads. Their machines were great, but were not meant to tolerate this amount of dust, therefore - they were malfunctioning a lot, slowing down the assault.
-
Ah, Napleon's downfall, like everyone else has been saying, would be Mother Russia's capabilites to make one hell of a snowball to throw at anyone in the winter.
-
But did Napoleon have a choice in invading Russia?
After defeating several European monarchies, he had made enemies of nearly every existing "old blood" monarchies in the continent.
Russia, with its large population and decent industry, was an impending doom for Napoleon. If Russia organized and invaded France, it would be years fighting on central Europe that would cripple the French economy and Napoleon's standing.
So, Napoleon probably decided that 'best defense is a good offense' and attempted a rapid assault on Russia. He probably planned on conquering Moscow before the winter.
But no ground army can reach Moscow before winter (unless your entire army is OP archers on horseback). So, that's why I think, if Napoleon had airships, he would have been victorious.
-
But no ground army can reach Moscow before winter (unless your entire army is OP archers on horseback). So, that's why I think, if Napoleon had airships, he would have been victorious.
Pfft. Civ 5 Warrior Army Rush can do dat!
In real era though, I think he did have a choice. Again, Mother Russia's massive amounts of man power was powerful, but it wasn't them who killed the soldiers. Winter is a fighter that you can't fight. Try as you might, Mr. Frost won't die no matter how many cannon volleys you fire at the snowbanks across the street. Maybe set up defensive positions around WARMER CLIMATE ZONES on the borders between France and Russia to hold them off? If I recall, his army was pub stomping a lot of other powerful nations, so it'd make sense that with fortifications and a well placed area, they'd be able to punch back enough to make Mother Russia go away.
-
Maybe set up defensive positions around WARMER CLIMATE ZONES on the borders between France and Russia to hold them off? If I recall, his army was pub stomping a lot of other powerful nations,
Well, that was sort of my point. A massive defensive line on long Russian border would have been almost impossible and expensive. And since his army was pub stomping everybody else, Napoleon probably thought the same applied to Russia.
And a massive defensive line wasn't the norm in European battle fields until trenches and WWI. Maybe diplomacy could have worked, but Napoleon allied with the anti-Russian Poles.
So, Napoleon's downfall was probably more circumstance than choice. But than, if Napoleon didn't pursue his imperial ambitions, he would have stayed on the throne, and we might have had a Bonaparte on the French throne for several Republics. (I think the French divide their post-revolution history into Republics, similar to German Reich. Current France is the fifth Republic)
-
Napoleon had one of the most powerful armies in the world at that time. He already conquered almost all of Europe. But he was greedy and wanted more. He wanted to have the largest empire there ever was. He wanted it to be bigger and better than what the Roman Empire had. This is what his major flaw was. He was power hungry. He wanted to be the greatest Emperor there ever was. He pushed his limits and suffered because of it. He got cocky and bit off more than he could chew.
His mind set was probably, "If i took this much of Europe through invasion with sheer power, then i can surely do it with Russia."
-
Time to revive this post.
After studying the first French revolution (and the second in 1830, third in 1848), I've come to a conclusion.
Napoleon's life, and anybody else's life, can be simplified to a few paragraphs, but that would not do justice. Studying him, I found both admirable and objectionable qualities about him.
To unjustly simplify his life through the lens of my opinion, his success and his failures were both grounded in his resolute and stubborn characteristic.
Napoleon was able to succeed because he was able to persevere through his impoverished, persecuted youth. Napoleon was able to move up the ranks because he was a steadfast officer in a time of chaos. Napoleon was able to crown himself emperor because he was unfaltering in his ambitions.
In Russia, his character failed him. Although he did not lose a battle until occupying Moscow, he had pushed his soldiers through the vast Russian lands too hard. Russians had used the Scorched Earth Strategy. Instead of wisely backing off, Napoleon stubbornly sat in now inhospitable, burning Moscow, arrogantly waiting for the Tsar Alexander's surrender. His veteran army, exhausted and demoralized by Napoleon's stiff-neck, was Routed when the winter came.
And now, Napoleon's uncompromising fiber became tight noose around his neck. An alliance of Russia, Prussia, Austria, and Britain contested him. He did not concede to an agreeable term presented to him. He stubbornly gave battle after battle without the tact and the knack of his youth. He constantly sought that one battle which would restore his invincibility.
He rose by an iron-will. He fell by that same iron-will. Iron-ic.
That's my opinion on Napoleon. I still want to hear yours.
@Schwalbe
I'm probably being completely ignorant here, but I thought the Polish liked Napoleon. Am I wrong?
-
tl;dr : Most admire him, but I'm a cold-blooded strategic mind, not a sentimental idiot.
Most do admire him, but taking a closer look, well... sorry for my poor vocabulary... he gave us ILLUSION of hope, freedom, an as illusive was that... goddammit, I lack words in english. Herzogtum Warschau. Completely artificial, in terms of politics, entity without any serious influence, without a chance to stand against the tides of Napoleonic Wars. Actually, it looks to me, that he only create that "entity" to give Polish soldiers hope for freedom, to manipulate them to serve as his puppets. It took some territory, and as far as I remember, was burdened with supporting french troops, stationed on it's territory. So Napoleon earned ally with territory, who had absolutely nothing against serving under his commands, both with fodder, land, supplies, therefore - strategic assets, it had no threatening power itself.\
That's as far as I remember from what I learned like, 3 years ago?
Now is the middle of the night, in the middle of pre-exams period, so I might not be a reliable source.
-
If Russia's tactic is to cut and run.
Wouldn't it have been wise to create a base camp at the border and send wave after wave of small highly trained forces? This way, the Russians would meet them in the field filled with over confidence. Only to be met once more with another force the next day or so.
And if the russians use their patented cut and run tactic. The small french forces can easily keep themselves rationed and supplied as they rotating shifts with other companies, because clearly holding ground is a disadvantage. The Russians would slowly kill themselves as they kill off their supplies. And the french would continue to make ground towards Moscow, because they are constantly supplying and rationing. Holding no territories as clearly theres nothing of value to actually bother with.