This was a topic that was on my mind a lot 3 years ago when I was really interested in the French Revolution/"Napoleonic" era. I got to thinking about it again a couple days ago and was wondering what you folks think. Was Napoleon, or what he did good or bad? (Think about this on multiple levels: ie. economically, politically, domestically, morally, etc...) Some things I can think of in regards to the "Good" or "Bad" argument. Pros (Good) -Rheinbund legislations -Toppled the HRE -Gave birth to the ideal of a pan-European movement. -Implemented the franc germinal (helped to stabilize economy as a whole) -Social reforms -National Bank -Sanctioned préfets -Commoner born in Sicily rises to Emperor of France and much of Europe. (Inspirational?) -Stabilized the newly formed French Republic -Civil Code (Codes of Civil Procedure, Commercial Law, Penal Code and Criminal Procedure.) -Education improved (not entirely for the majority though, because he more so encouraged private schooling. (lycées) -Assisted in allowing for the ideals of "liberalism" to spread throughout Europe. -Improved roads Cons (Bad) -Continental System (backfired on mainland Europe) -Willingly attacked Russia a second time. Proceeding with the 1812 invasion, despite his troops dependence upon war time foraging and the approach of winter. Ended up loosing 500,000 + men. -Ersatz aristocracies throughout Europe, many of them relatives or close associates. -Civil Code also ie. divorce laws, male as "head of house", permitted child imprisonment for a month. -Strict Censorship in many ways (although I read this article a while ago that gave a pretty good argument as to why this could be an incorrect statement..pinning the blame on Napoleon that is) -Perhaps a bit egocentric -Post-Napoleon France is rather crippled -Associated with Talleyrand and Foche I find one quote of his rather interesting, that I feel really sums up his foreign policy: "It is an ambassador's duty to stand up for his nation's foreign policy in any era and under any government whatsoever. Ambassadors are, in the full meaning of the term, titled spies." As for internal politics: "If fifty thousand men were to die for the good of the State, I certainly would weep for them, but political necessity comes before everything else." I do find it a bit ironic that a once staunch Corsican "rebel" minded individual should hold so much loyalty to a state that many thought oppressed the land of his birthplace.
I voted good out of necessity. If he hadn't existed, the universe would not be as it is. If the universe were not as it is, it wouldn't exist. And I think existence is good.
He had some good ideas but most of his wars were largely unnecessary and costly to Europe. Still he was a master tactician, and he just shows you what the French can do if they actually fight. I'd have to go with a neutral vote.
napolean was a great leader and ruler whose subjects for the most part seem to have been happy with him. armies meant to battle him joined him on at least one occasion. and, the tactics he used are still used in war today, over 200 years later. his only real mistake was trying to invade russia in the middle of winter.
