Discussion in 'Other Conflicts' started by DancingLady, Nov 21, 2014.

  1. DancingLady

    DancingLady Member

    What are your thoughts on Napoleon?
    He was a very brilliant leader that made France a powerful nation, but he caused much destruction throughout Europe and ultimately was defeated.

    If you are familiar with Waterloo, what is your opinion of that battle and it's outcome?
  2. Allison

    Allison Member

    Napoleon was a brilliant general. His military strategies are discussed in history classes today.
    It has been arguable that one of his most historic mastermind tactics was creating a fifth column in Russia. He organized people sympathetic to the French who were I believe Russians. They were secretly ready to assist Napoleons invading army.
  3. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    Buonaparte was undoubtedly a brilliant, dynamic and energetic leader. It is said, also, that he had the ability to focus his attention to one problem at a time, address it, then move on to another topic. He was able to keep multiple secretaries and stenographers busy with his dictations and letters. And forget not that even today France (and Lousianna) use the 'Code Napoleon' as a basis for their legal system.

    But he made enemies. Most of Europe regarded him as a monster.

    Regarding Waterloo -- he won the battle marginally had the action stopped at 5pm. At 7pm the Prussians marched onto the field of battle and turned his victory into defeat.
  4. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    We are now in the TWO HUNDRETH Anniversary of Napoleon's Hundred Days. He and his entourage escaped Elba on 1 March. Between then and the 15th of June he reconquered France, recruited a new Army, and damn near caught the Allies napping.

    Exciting times. But I hear NOTHING in the American Media.
  5. LilAnn

    LilAnn New Member

    He wasn't short for the time period he lived in. That was a myth. As far as his skills on the battlefield? He was definitely a genius. For a foreign general to receive recognition, in another country, 200 years later, he is either a HUGE goof up, or he was good enough to be worth remembering.
  6. Interrogator#6

    Interrogator#6 Active Member

    As I understand it, Napoleon WAS short, but only marginally. If the mean height was, err, 5'6", N. was 5'4", or not significantly below the average. Many of his external enemies politically called him short for political reasons, just as the French king was portrayed as a pear or an egg-plant in political cartoons, to ridical. In the drawings of the day much was done to smear him which was unjust -- like pictures of an American president as a ape or a nazi.
    LilAnn likes this.
  7. LilAnn

    LilAnn New Member

    lol, this brings to mind, "children can be so cruel". He has an entire mental condition named after him because of his height. And this many centuries later, people still talk about him being short. Poor guy! haha
  8. vashstampede

    vashstampede Active Member

    Most people seem to forget that the average height was way shorter back then. Humans have been growing in size in the last a 100 years or so due to better nutrition.

    I am 5'11, and when I visited an old fort from 1800s, I found the soldiers' beds were too short to fit me. It was clear that most people back there were "short" by today's standards.

    It is like people are making fun of Putin for being "short". He is actually average height for his generation too (in Russia anyway).

Share This Page