Napoleon

[mrmitchell]

Question.

I know good ol' Napoleon Bonaparte went around Europe killing his enemies, but he also established the education system and gov't system that was so good parts of it are still used in France (and I imagine the areas he conquered too.)

Sure, he jumped around Europe fighting wars, but wasn't that what all the European nations did at the time anyway? Didn't he just efficiencize it? What's wrong with that?

IMVHO he's a lot better than most European rulers of, before (and since) the time.

[aaglo]

What I come to think of upon hearing the name Napoleon, is the word shorty

[Dauphin]

I think of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

[mrmitchell]

Actually the latest revision to history I've heard is that the guy was actually about regular height for his time period and nation. I can believe the nation part (Frenchies) but really, could that be normal? He's not very short, but he's very short for a military leader, I guess.

[Az]

mrmitchell: I agree fully. If napoleon would win, It would be a good thing for europe, IMO.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Actually the latest revision to history I've heard is that the guy was actually about regular height for his time period and nation. I can believe the nation part (Frenchies) but really, could that be normal? He's not very short, but he's very short for a military leader, I guess.

This isn't "revision," this is documented truth. Napoleon stood 5'6" tall, which at the time was normal height for a European. However, the myth that he was abnormally short, IIRC, comes from a mistranslation of the measurement figures used at the time. Under the French system of measurement, he was 5'2" This equaled 168 centimeters, which is 5'6" under the current measurement system.

[Kropotkin]

Not a very 'modern' historical analysis imho. That one individual, Napoleon, made important reforms doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any reforms in any other hypotetical scenario.

[Az]

The rule of napoleon would benefit greatly places such as Spain and Russia. The Serf system that still existed in Russia (!!!) would be abolished. Germany wouldn't be united.
WWI, and WWII would not be fought.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Azazel
The rule of napoleon would benefit greatly places such as Spain . . .

The Spanish were so enamoured with Napolean that they invented the term "guerilla warfare" and frogwalked his imperial heinie back over the Pyranees.

[Az]

The fact that the Spanish were a bunch of crazy nationalists has nothing to do with how good were his policies for them. The return of the old monarchy to power was just another contributing factor to Spain's retardness during the 19, and much of the 20th century.

[mrmitchell]

Well, as for his height, it's not relevant.

What I'm saying is, most European kings/queens/etc. at the time just went around shifting armies and eating up the public budget. At least Napoleon gave France its best times. (No, really. Think of some other time where France was not the people running around making art, dissing the US (well, they do have some point somewhere), or being conquered by germany.)

[Az]

Well, I agree with this, as well, if one's to judge napoleon on a historic criteria. What I say is that he would've done pretty well, by today's standards, as well.

[Sandman]

Apparently, when he conquered Egypt, the Muslims nobles there offered to accept him as their ruler if he and his army converted to Islam. I wonder what would have happened if he'd taken up their offer...?

[Az]

We could contemplate many things. Some of this contemplating would be a waste of time, Sandman.

[DuncanK]

All this depends on how well the French would have governed. If they would have governed well of course that would be great, but if they would have governed poorly the empire would have collapsed and it would be pretty much like the Roman empire after it collapsed.