- First general in modern times who went into the carnage of battle with his troops as cannons mowed them down. - Wrote a comprehensive body of law which abolished serfs and gave rise to meritocratic european nation states. - Completely rethought the mechanics of war by introducing standardization of caliber, mobile artillery, meritocratic promotion and overhauling the supply chain. - Defeated all of Europe multiple times including the most powerful militaries of the time. - Invented the concept of Total War. - Education for all and higher education for the brightest - Destroyed the neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire - Took Moscow and burned it to the ground.
I think he was a genius, ahead of his time and that if he had succeeded in Russia we'd have none of the modern cuckery, the world would probably be unified today.
Brits will be disregarded in this thread as, let's face it, they've become an irrelevant country and throughout most of their history have not been wiped out because of the channel and compensated their weakness by attacking stone age tribes and profiting from trade. The brits are indeed, the jews of nations.
People's opinion are 50/50 when it comes to him. Some call him tyrant and others call him hero. He's not beloved like other historical figures such as Alexander the Great.
Noah Williams
Napoleon was rad as fuck, I'm not even talking about the military stuff. When he came back to France from exile he was one man with backing and the country threw out the king and took him back. He literally had the people who were sent to arrest him escort him to his seat of power because he demanded their loyalty.
Xavier Harris
You should drop your last point. He lost in Russia mostly because he had no winter quarters for his army.
BTW there's such anecdonte circulating here that Boney spurned some French scientist who wanted to publicly offer him a book on meteorology. He is said to make the man cry in the presence of his court. Is that true?
Zachary Powell
Napoleon was a failure.
- He bit off more than he could chew - He lost the war - He got his capital occupied by enemy armies - He permanently weakened France
Napoleon got Paris occupied in 1815, but because of the subsequent French weakness that was largely his fault, France was defeated in war and the Capital occupied again in 1871 and in 1940.
It's a terrible legacy. If I was French I would be ashamed of what that man did to my country.
Jayden Rodriguez
Is Napoleon considered a hero in France?
James Hall
"In the land of Pharaohs and kings, they said Egypt could never be humbled. In the shade of Olive Trees, they said Italy could never be conquered. In the realm of forest and snow, they said Russia could never be tamed. Now they say nothing."
He said this as he took Moscow, in those times surrender was expected when one lost a big battle (for example the whole 3rd coalition surrendered after Austerlitz) but the russians didn't surrender even after he took moscow. Then as the supply chain was unsustainable he burned it to the ground and set of. But the attrition was mild and it was his fall.
Just the destruction of the HRE was worth it all, better yet, Poland was reformed to counterbalance the Austro-Hungarian & Germanic powers, all of europe had a new constitution it could not withdraw because it's people would riot, and best for last:
The Revolution was saved.
Yep.
Blake Harris
You are insane
The destruction of the HRE was his biggest mistake. The "soft centre" of Europe became hard, and from that point France was doomed
Angel Long
Oh! That's interesting. I was taught that Moscow was burned soon after his arrival, so that even Russians themselves could be suspected to set it on fire. So he had to set a camp for his army in a burned city and hope that tzar accepts defeat (like he did not). And because he could not predict when exactly winter will come, he waited a week or two too long. Could pass some sources?
Jonathan Gonzalez
>- Took Moscow and burned it to the ground. We burned it.
James Garcia
Seems to be true. Scorched land or how they call it. Russians burnt literally everything behind themselves retreating from Napoleon, leaving his army without nutrition. Scorched earth + winter = nothing to eat.
Nathan Perez
this, though perhaps not intentionally
Easton Taylor
Napoleon made the UK into the most powerful force on the planet and for this I am thankful
Yep, actually Moscow burnt as a result of being made of wood, being invaded and sacked, the russians wanting to burn it (Although the french army entered in before they could), french arsonists, etc.
Wyatt Phillips
>Today, the majority of historians blames the initial fires on Russian sabotage.[1]
Brayden Martinez
Napoléon so good coward russians burn their cities so he wouldn't go there
Elijah Wood
A genius.
Grayson Long
Funny thing, my friend. Napoleon was the protector and spreader of the universal suffrage in Europe, the very thing that recently started the destruction of your country.
As for "most powerful force on the planet", you had a big colonial empire, beyond that... You had already lost the US forever and up until both world wars included, your military was quite pitiful and your navy too.
Zachary Campbell
I am sure the French revolution and Napoleon are the worst things to ever happen to France.
Before the French Revolution France had been the most powerful European country for a long time, since around the 1640s when beat the Spaniards in Rocroi. France was the demographic giant of Europe, a greater population than Russia and Germany, and often more than twice the population of the British Islands and the Iberian Peninsula.
By 1900, France had a smaller population than Germany and Great Britain, the population increased very little there in the XIX century in comparison to the rest of Europe (only Ireland did worse because of their famine and emmigration).
The reason for that little growth is the hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen who died during the Revolution (both soldiers, but also civilians like those killed in the Vendee or the executed ones in the terrors), and the over a million who died in the Napoleonic wars, mainly young men in age of having family and offspring, who didnt. Hundreds of thousands died in Spain, and even more in Russia, two unnecessary wars, (Spain was a betrayed ally).
I think Petain was good for France, even though I hate fascists and nazis, because he surrendered early. Because of him, relatively few Frenchmen died in the second world war. Lots of Frenchmen died in in the Napoleonic Wars and WW1, France couldnt allow itself to lose millions of young Frenchmen again in WW2.
Napoleon was the great glory before the great fall, in 1636 there were many people who thought the Spanish Empire was the greatest thing on earth, and couldnt see the coming decadence.
Elijah Evans
My country is fine actually
And maybe you're right, being the richest country in the world with the biggest empire and by far the most powerful navy doesn't make us the most powerful. Pax Brittanica was a thing, get over it
Jose Ward
Good post.
You're right but lots of them won't admit it
Tyler Hill
who was betrayed by own people. Instead of follow their Emperor at the very end they chose to drop out white flag.
Jonathan Wilson
Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century,"[3][4] around 10,000,000 square miles (26,000,000 km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire.[5] Victory over Napoleonic France left the British without any serious international rival, other than perhaps Russia in central Asia.[6] When Russia tried expanding its influence in the Balkans, the British and French defeated it in the Crimean War (1854–56), thereby protecting the by-then feeble Ottoman Empire.
Britain's Royal Navy controlled most of the key maritime trade routes and enjoyed unchallenged sea power. Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled access to many regions, such as Asia and Latin America. British merchants, shippers and bankers had such an overwhelming advantage over everyone else that in addition to its colonies it had an "informal empire"
Anthony Sullivan
he couldn't spell French properly, his wife cucked him, he was a big muslimboo, also balding manlet who slept in his bathtub
Christopher Howard
...
Carter Perry
he was a small dicked manlet who started France's decline
Joshua Evans
>two men do the same >one is seen as a villain, the other as a hero how is that fair?
Camden Butler
>Coward
Camden Lee
Time. Hitler seen as villain in 1950s maybe.
Owen Sanders
...
Cameron Cooper
He was a cool guy. I would have fought in his army if I was around at that time.
Anthony Williams
The Sun Readers masterrace ?
The Revolution is our crowning cultural and political achievement, it was the goal of the enlightenment and we're proud to be it's crucible.
Napoleon spread it's values to all of europe with his napoleonic code thus starting the movement towards republicanism that won over europe a century later.
Surely you like the concept of meritocracy ? A chance to earn higher education and better standards of living if you are up to the task ? Without him you wouldn't have that. This can be safely said. He abolished feudalism which guaranteed you a 97 chance of being a peasant all your life, whatever your abilities, intellect and potential.
His liberal influence can be credited for the start of the industrial and scientific revolutions as neither of those progressed in our near millenia of feudalism except in rare places like the Italian republics and the Orange Republic (the netherlands).
You are welcome.
Elijah Rivera
The Napoleonic wars don't look like they had a big impact on the French population, at least much less than the world wars, from which France recovered quickly anyway
Owen Rivera
>The Napoleonic wars don't look like they had a big impact on the French population
That is because you're looking at France in isolation. You have to look at the population growth RELATIVE to the other European countries.
It was the time of the industrial revolution and growth was soaring everywhere, but not France. France stunted because of the demographic band which got massacred
Here's a shitty graph after 5 seconds of google that shows what i mean
Benjamin Cook
But if that was the reason, wouldn't the French population have grown at a lower rate than it had pre-revolution? You can see it's pretty constant from the mid-18th century to the revolution
Gavin Collins
>to the revolution To WWI* And it's the growth rate that is constant
Carson Allen
>A loser is celebrated as a hero in France
Jose Peterson
>one man tries to exterminate a certain ethnic group, the other improving their rights >both are seen as villains How is that fair?
Colton Murphy
Belgium Arguing like a champ.
The english guy's chart starts at 1815 lol.
Not just of a certain ethnic group, of all of europe.
Notice how never once since 1450 has britain managed to secure a foothold on the continent ? You can only manage to beat natives, it seems.
Daniel Ross
He also thought of ways to invade England that were outlandishly impossible. >"What about a giant hot air balloon that could hold my entire army?" >"What if we tunneled under the channel?"
Ethan Clark
We would expect French population growth to *accelerate* along with the other industrialising European countries. The fact that the gradient remains similar to the pre-revolution gradient is *abnormal*
Easton Bell
>The english guy's chart starts at 1815 lol.
Because that's around the time the industrial revolution started to lift population growth. Here's another chart if you really need the obvious stated to you >Belgium Arguing like a champ. Looking at the French population growth in isolation, when there was a technological revolution affecting all of Europe, is really really stupid.
You guys should know better than this.
Anthony Ortiz
>The fact that the gradient remains similar to the pre-revolution gradient is *abnormal* Yes, but what I'm saying is, the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars are probably not the only reasons for that
Henry Ross
Makes me think of a joke.
Napoleon thinks about ways to invade England. "What if my soldiers entirely drink the Channel?" So he lines up his soldiers on the coast and yells "Drink! Drink! Drink!". The soldiers start drinking but strangely the sea level doesn't change. "Drink! Drink! Drink!" but nothing changes still. He wonders what's wrong so he puts his ear on the ground to try and hear the English.
Know what he hears?
"Piss! Piss! Piss!"
Lincoln Harris
>Hot air balloons were successfully used for recon for a century after than. Planes today are are the nerve of the supply chain and serve in troop transport way more than boats can.
>Tunnel under the channel is now one your most used tunnel and an economic nerve of London. The English navy being unbeatable on the sea until the advent of the u-boat, this kind of connection would have been optimal.
Aren't you just describing a man ahead of his time ?
Your argument has more to do with demographic transition, which is a well known geographical effect, of which France is an exception since 1750 and it's one of the criticisms of that model.
Chase Carter
He is based and so is the manga
Jack Howard
>Yes, but what I'm saying is, the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars are probably not the only reasons for that
The casualties the French took in the Napoleonic Wars alone are so much worse than what they suffered in the world wars. It's very underestimated by Napoleonic-admirers. Also Napoleon's retarded laws didn't help. If you think about it, it's perverse that the French population fell behind Britain's
>The effect of the war on France over this time period was considerable. According to David Gates, the Napoleonic Wars cost France at least 916,000 men. This represents 38% of the conscription class of 1790–1795. This rate is over 14% higher than the losses suffered by the same generation one hundred years later fighting Imperial Germany.[3] The French population suffered long-term effects through a low male-to-female population ratio. At the beginning of the Revolution, the numbers of males to females was virtually identical. By the end of the conflict only 0.857 males remained for every female.[4] Combined with new agrarian laws under the Napoleonic Empire that required landowners to divide their lands to all their sons rather than the first born, France's population never recovered. By the time of the First World War France had lost its demographic superiority over Germany and Austria and even Great Britain
Nathan Robinson
>The English navy being unbeatable on the sea until the advent of the u-boat
The Germans never beat the Royal Navy. They lost the naval war... both times.
Blake Thomas
>You are now imagining a Napoleonic wars anime
Charles Phillips
>British historian, ultimately biased
Do you even history ? Most of the british army was rendered obsolete with the advent of the Uboat which is why they sent it so carelessly to the dardanelles. The german navy was shit and they did lose battles, but a few more years of u-boat would have decimated your navy.
>bruh
Gavin Martin
Napoleon shaped Europe as we know it, and the Napoleonic code propelled the continent into the future of mankind. On the other hand, he weakened France forever...
Jayden Flores
An acceptable price to pay, brother, as we wrote history and the world bears our cultural and political influence for the better.
Camden White
Again, if the only reason was the male to female ratio left by the Napoleonic wars, wouldn't you expect the population growth to be lower than before the revolution? Unless the effects of the industrail revolution exactly compensated those of the wars.
Some people on Reddit discussed it also, too bad most of them don't give their sources.
>a few more years of u-boat would have decimated your navy.
Erm.... no. That is a myth. Although I expect as much from a Napoleon-apologist. The RAF and convoys fucked them.
>At no time during the campaign were supply lines to Britain interrupted; even during the Bismarck crisis, convoys sailed as usual (although with heavier escorts). In all, during the Atlantic Campaign only 10% of transatlantic convoys that sailed were attacked, and of those attacked only 10% on average of the ships were lost. Overall, more than 99% of all ships sailing to and from the British Isles during World War II did so successfully.
>The reason for the misperception that the German blockade came close to success may be found in post-war writings by both German and British authors. Blair attributes the distortion to "propagandists" who "glorified and exaggerated the successes of German submariners", while he believes Allied writers "had their own reasons for exaggerating the peril".[72]
>Dan van der Vat suggests that, unlike the U.S., or Canada and Britain's other dominions, which were protected by oceanic distances, Britain was at the end of the transatlantic supply route closest to German bases; for Britain it was a lifeline. It is this which led to Churchill's concerns.[9] Coupled with a series of major convoy battles in the space of a month, it undermined confidence in the convoy system in March 1943, to the point Britain considered abandoning it,[74] not realizing the U-boat had already effectively been defeated. These were "over-pessimistic threat assessments", Blair concludes: "At no time did the German U-boat force ever come close to winning the Battle of the Atlantic or bringing on the collapse of Great Britain".[75]
David Green
I thought the reason france stopped/slowed having population growth in the 1800s was that it was viewed as barbaric or some shit to have kids and france was pretty much alone in that. Rather than it being because of men being lost in the wars
Juan Johnson
>Again, if the only reason was the male to female ratio left by the Napoleonic wars, wouldn't you expect the population growth to be lower than before the revolution?
No I wouldn't, because I would expect the population growth to be boosted by the technological advancements. They didn't compensate *exactly*, the lines on those graphs are very smoothed.
What's really amazing is that *loads* of British and German people left for the Americas during the 19th century, but of course the French didn't do much of that. And despite all that population loss the French population still stagnated as it did
Grayson Stewart
>What does Sup Forums think of Napoleon ? Bretty gud military leader though I've heard that he made some pretty poor decisions every so often. I don't know enough about his alterations to civil law to make a judgement
So top bloke/10
Chase Baker
I admire the man..
HOWEVER
He took on international capitalism and trade. It was only a matter of time until Russia began trading with perfidious albion (that's how trade works), he was forced to invade and lose because he took on international trade with the Napoleonic Continental System. It failed for similar reasons the EU has failed today.
That was simply foolishness and arrogance. He could defeat political opponents, nations, and armies however, it is impossible to defeat global trade and capitalism.
Jacob Torres
>Civil law
superior common law coming through
Nathaniel Cruz
Not quite, Russia was the only war he started. All the other coalitions were funded and encouraged by the british who would offer ludicrous sums that made war very worthwhile against France. Napoleon sought to start a war with Russia pre-emptively before it was ready to declare war on the empire.
Chase Watson
Shouldn't France's population have grown at the same rate as Germany and the UK at some point in the late 19th century then? 916,000 men was something like 5% of the French population at the time, more than one century sounds like a very long time to recover from that, I mean Europe has already recovered from the World wars and they were much deadlier.
Camden Campbell
>Shouldn't France's population have grown at the same rate as Germany and the UK at some point in the late 19th century then?
Probably should have. There must have been other compounding factors but Napoleon and that horrible male:female ratio had long term structural effects and I suppose acted as the catalyst for further problems.
Some have noted that countries suffer a decay in the fertility rate when the country experiences a loss of power and prestige. Obviously France experienced this throughout the 19th century which (apparently) hurt fertility
British fertility suffered after its empire started to decline and our population stagnated around the 1970s, which was the time of maximal British decline. The birth rate started improving from the 80s onwards when British power started to make a slow recovery.
It's a really weird correlation when you think about it. I don't entirely believe it until I see more evidence.
Andrew Moore
Give it time
Dylan Foster
He spread the ideals of enlightenment and the Napoleonic code, breddy gud :DDD
Gavin Clark
Underestimated Portuguese stalling capabilities and scorcher earth strategy. He was basically only good when his opponents played the way he foresaw, but couldn't improvise or change his strategy on the go, so he got fucked by guerilla and peasant mobs.
Also, he used shitty outdated cannons loaded from the front like some peasant 300 years before.
Zachary Peterson
>Destroyed the neither Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire
That's the biggest achievement if you want my opinion
Anthony Jenkins
Ayyy brotherrssss
Andrew Cook
He is one of the most revered figures in Poland
Military genius Capable statesman Real human bean
We love him because he is associated with enlightenment, freedom, and killing tons of Germans and Russians
Zachary Gray
Ah, the polish winged cavalry is stuff of legends here, along with our Hussards in the french valhalla !
Jose Richardson
Nice! Do you happen to know the that one French song about Polish chevaliers (knights? cavalrymen? I don't remember). It's really catchy but I forgot its title and can't find it anymore.
Fun fact: Napoleon is mentioned in our anthem as a figure we should draw example from
Levi Anderson
He should have won Tbh.
Ryder Adams
But didn't. C'est la vie.
Ayden Watson
Napoleon was an inspirational leader but he was way too aggressive. I think Charles de Gaulle is my favorite French leader. >kept fighting for the independence of his homeland even when all hope seemed lost >realized the empire was only holding France back >didn't allow France to become subservient to the US like the UK >had respect for the Catholic church He also didn't make tons of French people die in Russia.
>Not mentioning Arthur Wellesley I'll admit that you guys were pretty good at resisting the siege yourselves, but the big ace up your sleeves was that England actually gave a shit about you
Lucas Reed
True, true. Most of the planning was definitely British, so was half the army, and we are grateful for that. At least I am.
I actually read a bunch of letters that the a general/higher up sent at the beginning and the end of the war, and it's pretty funny how his impression of the Portuguese changed in the meantime.
He starts to describe how ragged and unprepared we were (we had had some terrible war and an earthquake in the last 50 years, so half our muskets didn't fire, we had very little food and were catching rocks to throw on the way to the field), but he ends up praising that we were absolute madmen carrying out the almost-suicide missions and surviving on very little food. I guess defending your own land puts an extra boost of courage. British Discipline and Portuguese bravery brought the victory, is how he put it.
Also, the french were scared of our bagpipes at night (they sound rather bassy) and the mountains amplify it quite a bit), kek.
Mason Smith
Hitler didn't give anything to Europe besides death and doom. Napoleon infulenced the world.
Why do you german bastards always compare your sick fucks to other Europeans?
Lincoln Howard
Thanks based Poland.
Jordan Ortiz
Can confirm Napoleon was based, here are the reasons: 1/2
Transportation of Troops and Supplies: His ability to move and organize his troops, whole armies, across Europe at a speed never before witnessed. For almost a decade, no one could out-march the French troops of Napoleon. Most other armies of the time required days, sometimes weeks, of slow supply build ups before engaging in combat, whereas Napoleon's troops were able to travel long distance, set up, and fight, all within hours/days, as opposed to weeks.
Supply innovations: His foresight in pushing for innovation with the preservation and distribution of food, see the invention of canning
Tactics: His genius-level battlefield tactics, expert at dominating terrain and creating feints. He was also an expert at creating confusion and chaos between the various coalition military forces aligned against his troops, by attacking the "hinges" making up coalition troops, he would slow down communication and the giving of orders by his opponents. Revolutionary ground army tactics: His creation of the Corps D'Armée, and other concepts still in use today. He promoted a "modular" kind of army which were capable of efficiently assembling and reassembling themselves in different configurations.
Impeccable artillery tactics: His background in artillery and the then superior French artillery technology of the day, no one was able to manage artillery at the speed and efficiency with which he did
His charisma: His ability to motivate his troops. He was very well read in military history, and he used every trick in the book on how to be a confidence-inspiring military leader
Matthew Morris
2/2 (Cont)
The value of man: His sharp eye for talent and his willingness to promote based on merit, as opposed to station(common folk vs nobility, etc). This was incredibly endearing to his troops, if not for certain officers. This meant that Napoleon surrounded himself by the very best talent France(and allies) had to offer, and who were all extremely loyal to him.
Memory: His incredible near-picture-perfect memory, and his ability to communicate it with his troops. He had a deep knowledge of the geography throughout Europe, of who was in power where and what these leaders/troops valued. He was known to remember minute but important personal details about various soldiers and officers which made them feel special.
Gavin Thomas
>Impeccable artillery tactics: His background in artillery and the then superior French artillery technology of the day, no one was able to manage artillery at the speed and efficiency with which he did
Wasn't Napoleon using front-loaded cannons?
We had back loaded cannons in the late 1400's that fired at 6x the speed of the front loaded ons of the time. Why was he using such outdated technology, then? There must have been an advantage.
Robert Parker
If he was so great why did he allow himself to get into a position where he lost his war? Don't you think results matter?
Gabriel Sullivan
In all honesty, Napoleon is said to have an inferiority complex which led him to be so reckless during the russian campaign. He was a genius, sure, and unlucky sure, but he undeniably overplayed himself.
In his notes he is said to think that since he was not of noble blood, the French only supported him because of his military victories and felt the need to go on winning.
In a time were feudalism and classism was still omnipresent, you could understand why. Also Napoleon has always been an outsider, in his youth, from the French because of his funny accent and ugly physique, then after his studies, from the corsican because he had become one of them.
Even his wife, Joséphine pitied him and mocked him at first, but he loved her still.
He was definitely a beta, to have this in his heart and mind, and to still serve his country and support the ideals of freedom and meritocracy is exemplary as far as the human condition goes.
Nathaniel Wright
It wasn't exactly an "inferiority complex" in my opinion. It was a lack of strategic depth.
Everyone ITT is saying he was a military genius but his strategy involved doing the same thing over again - going into a country and provoking the "decisive battle" which he would invariably win due to superior tactics on the battlefield.
He only won against powers that offered him his "decisive battle".
But if a power denied it to him, like Portugal and Russia, he just didn't know how to win. Also Spain was a disaster because he had trouble getting his "decisive battle".
Presented with attritional warfare like with the Russians, he did it all wrong. It was strategy not winter that made him lose. Half his army was already gone before the arrival of winter.
>to still serve his country and support the ideals of freedom Support the ideals of freedom? What the fuck?
Napoleon REINSTATED SLAVERY in the French colonies.
You can't all be THIS brainwashed about him.
Cooper Gray
>Surely you like the concept of meritocracy ? A chance to earn higher education and better standards of living if you are up to the task ? Without him you wouldn't have that. This can be safely said. He abolished feudalism which guaranteed you a 97 chance of being a peasant all your life, whatever your abilities, intellect and potential
The US Constitution was enacted the year the French Revolution started--if anything, we inspired you.
Aiden Brown
Against Russia, I think the Battle of Borodino had potential of being very decisive (just like you said of western powers which exposed themselves right into Nappy's hands), and yet Russians managed to deal a large enough blow to weaken his army so much that he wasn't able to do anything else without reinforcements, and he was denied that. It was bravery and resilience of Russian people to stand up to him in a nearly even engagement, giving him the toughest fight against iron willed enemy he he had yet to encounter so far.
In fact, Napoleon has been incredibly lucky in nearly all his battles, his military successes were just a string of fortunately chained actions of other people. t. tolstoy
Asher Clark
Pretty sure front loaders were more accurate, reliable and had longer range compared to breech-loaders until the mid 19th century.
Cooper Kelly
There is the debate around Borodino about Napoleon's failure to commit the Guard. Maybe that's what you are referring to. Some say that if had committed the Guard it would have been a decisive victory.
I don't think that's the case. The Tsar and his generals had a clear strategy which was bigger than Borodino. Their strategy was to stretch Napoleon's forces and move them further and further away from their supply points. Kutuzov planned to do this and was going to it regardless of how many people died in Borodino. There was no intention to surrender upon losing a battle like that.
Napoleon believed that taking the capital would provoke the Tsar to come to terms or give him his "decisive battle". He was naiive.
Xavier Barnes
Tolstoy was immensely biased against Napoleon, it's a pretty bad source as far as historical accuracy goes.
Also you don't get lucky so much, so many times. He singlehandedly defeated armies twice his size with very few casualties. The other side being incompetent, I can believe with a few arguments. He being lucky for 15 years, I can't. It'd be like saying the higgs boson was a "lucky" statistical artefact that just happened to repeat itself a few hundred times.
Sorry to break it to you, but you were an ex-colony, not hugely relevant back then.
>Napoleon slavery meme
Read history
>Lack of strategic depth Lolwut
Aiden Bennett
Those were the unwritten (or even written) rules of the war back then. Same thing with politeness that asked the enemy force to fire the first volley.
Aiden Stewart
He was really fucking awesome for an italian, honestly
Nolan Perry
>Sorry to break it to you, but you were an ex-colony, not hugely relevant back then. Actually no, the early US had a huge effect on the Europe of that time.
The French Law of 20 May 1802 was passed that day (30 floréal year X), revoking the Law of 4 February 1794 (16 pluviôse) which had abolished slavery in all the French colonies.
Weak excuse
Carter Clark
Then maybe it was just a naval thing, not to be forced to pull back the cannon or go outside the hull.
Makes sense.
Alexander Rodriguez
Napoleon made France a better place so he's pretty based.
Christopher Lopez
>British history Ur a joke
Lucas Rogers
Dubs confirm
Ethan Bailey
Republicanism = Cancer Napoleon is a faggot that is burning in hell spreading his boipucci for all the Spaniards he killed.
Alexander Fisher
one of the crowning things about napoleon was his meritocratic military, instead of using nobility and rich people who buy commissions he promoted based on ability.
its why his generals were all amazing, davout, massena, etc. and why the armies of russia and prussia were shit since they were led by the nobility who weren't entirely qualified.
