🎥 Join our TH-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the life and career of Sulla, First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: th-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsangenerals as well!
Napoleon restated slavery when he came to power. Like wtf, that was a huge thing that happened. The outlawing of slavery at the time was really revolutionary when the French Revolution happened. You did not even mention why France lost Haiti and why the conflict even happened in the first place. You could have said why real fast . Are you serious? You also state he brought equality, did he? Partially If he actually did not reinstate slavery, then maybe you would be far more correct on that statement. You have talked about slavery before and I am just surprised you don’t even talk about in this which was part of the history of Napoleon.
In Poland Napoleon generally considered a hero and a liberator. To this very day Polish national anthem says "Bonaparte showed us how we should prevail". After the Third Partition of Poland in 1795 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist and was divived by Prussia (later Germany), Austria and Russia - empires which were hated by their new Polish subjects. Many thousands of Poles saw Napoleon as their greatest chance at regaining independence and enlisted into Napoleonic armies, often becoming some of his most fanatically loyal soldiers. Example of that can be found in the Battle of Somosierra, when Polish cavalry conducted a suicide charge at Spanish fortified positions at Napoleon's order, almost single handedly winning the battle and opening the road to Madrid for the French. Polish prince and nephew of the last king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Józef Poniatowski, was even nominated by Napoleon to the rank of Marshall, becoming the only non-French Marshall of France in history (sadly dying shortly after in the Battle of Leipzig). Napoleon's victories over Prussians and Austrians allowed for the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw, which Poles hoped would be the first step on the road to rebuilding old Commonwealth. One of Napoleon's stated goals/propaganda justifications for his invasion of Russia was liberation of occupied Polish lands. Napoleon remained a strong national symbol for Poles even after his defeat. In 19th century Polish positivist literature there is even a trope of an old, disgruntled Napoleonic Wars veteran who fanatically, against all odds, believes some Napoleon's heir will soon come, so he's always prepared with a sabre near hand to answer the call when it comes
Too much nonsense, where is the talk about the german states? Where about the netherlands? Where about switzerland? Where about italy? Where about spain? Where about portugal? And finally where about russia? No you dont care about that, you are just a perfect hypocrit.
Napoleon was definitely a reformer and a tyrant, just look at Caesar, he may have been a power hungry megalomaniac, but he was very good in governing, he enacted and laid the ground work for many projects that aimed to stabilize the Roman Empire, and these projects were enacted later on by Augustus
and for both of them, people they conquered wanted someone with full power. Napoleon couldnt implement the revolution reforms in all countries he conquered as fast as possible. They expected a king to take their place thats why he was an emperor. He needed to prject the same power a king would, despite not having the same noble blood.
His actions, the populism he had to rely on, military achievements and the discussion upon his role as a whole reminds me a lot of Julius Caesar. The parallels are huge. Take the land reforms for example or the attempt to lower the importance of the assemblies by overcrowding them with loyal fellows.
hitler is not that similar to napoleon. Hitler lost the battle similiarly but Hitler was far worse and should not be comapred to Napoleon in any way other than military achievement and even then Napoleon was clearly the better@@Shapar95
@@dominusdone5023 I don’t know if napoleon was better militarily - the third reich conquered more people and land militarily than napoleon. Why should they not be compared. Hitler and Napoleon restored national pride, built a big empire founded on megalomaniacal desire for power and then lead their people to utter ruin before their shameful defeat to their enemies. It’s literally copy paste stories. It’s surreal.
@@Shapar95 One of the biggest differences in my opinion is, that Caesar and Napoleon let pretty much from the front. Their battles many times were won by their genius or courage, no matter what you would say about their intensions. This went as far as the coalition avoiding enemy armies in battle, when Napoleon was present, because he had such an impact on the outcome. That is not true for Hitler.
@@dominusdone5023 Hitler, unlike the other 2, went into conquest mode with a huge advantage and lost in humiliating fashion and relatively quickly by warfare standards. Napoleon and Caesar were both constantly winning battles wildly outnumbered by utilizing genius level battlefield command and control. Hitler had a few generals like Mannstein who were tactically amazing but it's sad that Hitler himself ever gets mentioned in the same conversation as the other 2. Those guys are in the same conversation as Alexander and Hannibal and Genghis Khan. Hitler isn't fit to shine any of their shoes as a strategist. In fact his career as a strategist can basically be summed up in 'big giant swing after big giant swing that stopped paying off and cost him everything due to inflexibility'. That's the opposite of a legendary commander lol. That's an NFL coach who would otherwise be shit-canned at the end of a season.
Excellent video. Napoleon is what inspired me to take up history as a profession. I think his reign and the debate around it is one of the best examples of the importance of a nuanced view of "great" or "evil" characters. Few characters are purely evil and few are ever good. It's always a mixed bag and what comes out of that bag depends on the attitudes of those remembering and not always on fact.
Napoleon walks this thin line of being both. He certainly, especially by non French people, is seen as a tyrant more than a reformer, but for France and also for the future of Europe he has meant a lot which this video nicely points out. In my opinion Napoleon is a very complex person that shows you can be a tyrant while simultaneously be a great reformer. Another great example is Charlamagne, a tyrant for sure but also a great reformer for Europe as a whole.
I think the foreign aristocrats saw him as a tyrant. Pretty sure the masses didn't give a fuck or thought of their new freedom as pretty neat. You know being a serf is a pretty shitty life. Of course also some bought in the church and state propaganda but I mean the whole of Europe rose in revolutionary flames in 1848 taking Napoleon civil code and administration as inspiration.
whether Napoleon is viewed as a tyrant or not has nothing to do whether the opinion comes from a Frenchman or not but rather whether or not it comes from a Briton. With possibly the exception of rare Britons educated in the field of European history... who obviously have a better understanding. This following link of British ORIGIN makes it clear th-cam.com/video/bxQ4TcTcPbI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=IntelligenceSquared
@@NangDooferi mean the first half of the Coalition Wars were just 'we monarchs want to execute all you fuckers over in France!!!!' and then the second half were 'and we want to kill Napoleon very specifically!!!!'
@@ElBandito Well Genghis khan is a tyrant and barbaric conqueror for anyone not Mongolian he by the standard of his day was very cruel and brutal and his unified empire fell in about 50 years and the big khanates fell in less than 170 years
He does strut the fine line between both and it depends also where you're from. In Croatia, when I was taught History in School, Napoleon was often portrayed in a more positive light due to how he treated our people and policies he enacted during the brief period we were under French rule. Unlike the Hungarians and Austrians, Napoleon treated us better, gave us better rights and even consider us rather highly due to i believe him being impressed by our soldiers' performance in his legion. So he tends to be portrayed as a bit of liberator to us than a Tyrant due to this.
I'm Hungarian and we learn Napoleon had an offer for Hungarians. Hungarians would have had to join to him then he would have ended the Habsburg rule. But the Hungarian nobility (who were one of the most backward nobility in Europe) rather chose the feudal Habsburgs than Napoleon who was the symbol of the French Revolution. Btw I think if Hungarians would have joined him it's uncertain if it would have been better for Hungary or he would have destroyed the Habsburgs. Napoleon still would have lost in my opinion, Hungary wasn't that big military power at that time. Also, you can see what he did with Polish people, they joined to him then he didn't help to create an independent Poland what he promised.
Oh and when the Hungarians refused Napoleon 's offer the Hungarian nobility even attacked him. 😅 This was the battle of Győr in 1809 (Battle of Raab in international history) the only one Hungarian battle in Napoleonic wars. Of course Napoleon easily destroyed the Hungarian army.
He’s a historical lightning bolt. Came out of nowhere and changed a continent. A truly “great” man (if you subscribe to that theory of history) with fantastic subordinates.
I have argued that Napoleon besides Martin Luther (Protestant Reformation) or God/Jesus (Christianity) have had a bigger impact on Europe. Much of the ideas of democracies, laws, and republics would not have spread throughout Europe if it wasn't for Napoleon's military successes.
@@alex_spartan1805I would say Greece and Rome. Rome conquering Greece was the single most significant event in European history, if not world history. The writings of the Greeks inspired the Romans, and in turn the writings, teachings, and philosophies of some the greatest minds of those two civilizations inspired and influenced everyone that came after including Napoleon, who wanted to follow in the mold of Alexander and Caesar. Guys like Cicero, Plato, Aristotle and others influenced just about every brilliant thinker that came after.
He didn't come out of nowhere, he came out of the French Revolution. The pattern of an individual charismatic leader arising from a period of revolt and breakdown of institutions is quite common.
If you ever find yourself in Paris I recommend a visit to Napoleons tomb . His sarcophagus is huge and to be honest it’s visually stunning . Les Invalides has a lot of portraits of Napoleon and his generals as well . The whole building really is beautiful. There are so many beautiful places in Paris to visit but I wouldn’t miss out on this
Looking at the ongoing messes in the legislative branches worldwide, it is easy to see why people may feel attracted to Napolean or Caesar's style of forcing stuff through. It's frustrating to see politicians in parliament playing a stupid political game and unable to get anything done.
More and more I'm becoming okay with military dictatorship if it leads to better governance. Democracy isn't worth it if no one gets what they want, but you can't simply put the genie back in the bottle. Especially with the internet, there are too many rights that humans consider worth dying to protect, and thus its very hard to go full empire today. That said, a military backed business oligarchy could very easily be done, even in America with the right governors on their side.
@@geordiejones5618that's kind of what hints of FDRs and Huey Long's policies were in the 1930s for the USA. FDR did in some regard did like what Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany were doing early on, but the majority of people forget that/igrone it because WW2 changed that narrative.
@@geordiejones5618 not better governance, EFFECTIVE governance. The moment a military dictatorship is in place, the rulers effectively step all over everything you take for granted today.
Well i know much later on after the Napoleonic War there is another man from Prussia who also did the same thing. And by his iron hand and Prussia military might through blood. A new nation was united and born. Not by politician in Parliament with their speeches and the rule of majority. Quite a nice irony example i must said.
About the image of Napoleon in modern Spain: after how disastrous the reign of Ferdinand VII was, and the legacy of constant internal instability and military coups it left, is not rare for people in my country to wonder "maybe things would had gone better if Napoleon had won the war". There is this idea that if Joseph Bonaparte had stayed as king, liberal reforms would had actually taken hold. And that in that way, the traditional and absolutist governments that followed afterwards and held the country back, wouldn't had happened.
Thats what happens when the masses are uneducated and blindly follow their religous leaders. How is bringing a country a constitution with liberal ideas and freedoms being an antichrist? 😆
@@las_espannasI would like to know if you have sources for that, I'm interested. I know Jean lannes was one for sure and other heads of the french regime. I personally don't think the current Freemasons and the old orders are the same. Might be naivety on my part.
You are giving Napoleon undue credit, since it was never Napoleon's intention for Latin America to become independent. Napoleon wanted to conquer Portugal and Spain and their empires, in that he utterly failed, losing the war. So don't give him credit for something he unintentionally help set in motion.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictatorsNapoleon captured the Spanish royal family and created a power vaccum in Spanish Latin America. In Portugal the French invasion was foreseen and the entire Portuguese Court moved to Brazil(my country) where It was established a new seat of government in Rio de Janeiro. Despite this, it helped immensely our independence since a Braganza prince, Dom Pedro I, helped us to gain liberty from Portugal 14 years later.
@@adrianocarvalho1549 Exactly, it was Dom Pedro, Bolivar, San Martin, etc that won their own independence for Latin America. Don't give any credit to Napoleon for blundering into a long war in Iberia that would eventually lead to his downfall in defeat.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators It was Haiti that Freed Latin America, the Haitian flag can be seen on Colombia,Ecuador and Venezuela . Alexander Petition gave them guns,place to stay and Soldiers. It is disgusting that Latin Americans talk about the enemy of Haiti Napoleon in a positive light. Haiti was betrayed in the end by Bolivar refusing to recognize their independence which lead to more sanctions on Haiti , It is disgusting that no one talks about this
@@theultimateartist4153Haiti was a an internal mess after the massacre of the white slave owners. They were replaced by black slave owners. Toussaint himself was a slave owner. This is the hard reality. Haiti has been betrayed by its own leaders in first place
It was the coalition monarchs that are responsible for the wars as they wanted to return to Europe the pre 1789 status. Napoleon moderated any of the excesses that had occurred during the Revolution. The war in Spain happened because Manuel Godoy wanted to get out of the alliance with France and join Prussia but then withdrew these plans after news of Jena. It was Tsar Alexander that issued an ultimatum to France to withdraw from Poland and Prussia in 1812 and Napoleon ignored this as this as they had agreed to the settlements at Tilsit 1807. He got rid of feudalism, serfdom, religious prosecution and brought meritocracy, private ownership and equality before the law to the countries in Europe. He took the title of Emperor as royalists with British backing tried to assassinate him and therefore need a legitimate heir incase he died to avoid plunging France back into to a civil war amongst various faction like during the revolution. All males in France had vote to elect candidates to be put forward as candidates in local and national assemblies which unlike other countries which ordinary people had no political input.
Really? It was the coalition monarchs who told him to atack and brutalize Portugal which was no threat to him whatsoever? Did they force him to invade Russia because he thought he had the right to chose with which countries continental European nations were allowed to trade with?
It’s also important to mention the that even though napoleon made some positive reforms, his rule was also horrible in many ways. Most notably, he hated blacked people and reinstated slavery in Hati with the express purpose of “forever halting the advancement of blacks in the world” he also destroyed women’s rights in France and personally hated gay people. So yeah, not great.
Napoleon had an offer of peace in 1813 made by the Austrians which would have resulted in an end to the coalition wars. He only had to retreat behind the rhine river but could keep in power over France (still a lot bigger then modern France and a huge expansion compared to the french kingdom). Napoleon refused to give up his empire and paid the price for it.
@@noobster4779 When Napoleon ask his marshal and best friend Jean Lannes to prepare Italy to his ascension to the throne by circumventing any dissidents, Lannes answered after refusing multiple time Infront of an enraged Napoleon, "I can not find it in me to put back the shackles to a country I just Freed". Napoleon was so shocked that he couldn't say a word. He didn't press the matter further to him and anyone else. I think we shouldn't forget how important were the Ideals of the revolution in the heart of the French and how much they wanted to spread it to their neighbours.
except for spain and 1812 Russia (which could be argued was caused by Russia breaking a treaty), all the other wars were defensive wars. he had war imposed on him constantly and he kept whooping ass. not fair to call him a war monger.
@@scott2452 i didn’t count Egypt because he wasn’t in charge then and wasn’t his final decision - that’s not to say that he wasn’t for the idea cos he obviously was. Portugal I included as part of the peninsular war. Haiti is too complicated discuss and i cba lol.
@@pacnite It really isn't. Revolutionary France gets rid of slavery. Napoleon reintroduces it in the colonies, and sends an army to re-enslave people in Haiti. His army gets its butt kicked, and this move also angers the British. The leaders of Haiti even sent emissaries to Napoleon, but all he did was throw them in the dungeon rather than even hear what they had to say. Also, let's stop pretending that Napoleon didn't repeatedly reject generous peace offers that most nations were willing to accept as part of a new European balance of power. Napoleon's biggest weakness was always diplomacy. His decision to execute the Duke of Enghien was probably one of the most brain dead move of his career, as it pretty much turned everyone against him. He didn't understand how his continental system was simply not feasible, nor did he understand that invading a country and installing your family and friends as rulers isn't going to run well with the people. So yes, Napoleon AND the British bear the brunt of the blame for the wars of the coalition in the 1800s. Their actions destabilized the continent.
*8:03** The Arc de Triomphe was achieved only in 1836...* *Napoleon I never saw the thing anywhere near finished.* (Although he ordered a wooden mock-up to be erected in 1810 for his entry into Paris with his new wife Marie-Louise)
I love this channel! I really hope that you continue this Napoleonic series. I would also love to see a series about the French settlement of and wars in North America.
@@HashimyHuseinihe is saying Louis isn’t his equal or predecessors. Only the great Charlemagne Frankish emperor and conqueror is who he succeeds and is his equal.
Music buffs will know that Beethoven was a fan of the ideals of the French Revolution, and planned a tribute to Napoleon the Liberator in the form of his Third or "Bonaparte" Symphony. When Napoleon declared himself emperor, Beethoven was so enraged he crossed out the title and changed it to "Heroic Symphony *Dedicated To The Memory Of A Great Man*". You can do an image search for the title page of the Eroica Symphony and see that old Ludwig's eraser went straight through the page he was so mad lol.
Well, as you've said in Spain his reputation IS pretty terrible, for selfexplanatory reasons. The only thing that helps him a bit IS that the King he deposed is widely considered to be the worst King we've ever had, which is really high bar to clear. Anyway, the war was UTTERLY brutal. It's Up there with the spanish civil war in terms of total casualties, which is honestly mindblowing.
Spanish people should not forget that their king invaded French during the revolution and were decisively defeated during the War of the Roussillon at the Battle of the Sierra Negra.
Maybe the Spanish guerillas shouldn't have fought dishonorably attacking both French and Spanish. All that to put back on the throne an entitled tyrant, with an allied that pillaged your own country, that would become a ruler as useless as his father who legit abdicated to Napoleon because he didn't like to rule. I mean imagine fighting for the enslavement of your own people for a Prince in exile that do not participate in the campaign. Makes no sense.
@@olivierpujol8772 they were a people drugged by the Catholic priests. The criminal bandits were on heaven during that period and they did not leave Spain after the French defeat. French occupation was just an excuse for their exaction. Religion can be very dangerous when used for political reasons. Spain became a total third level power because of them. Joseph was a wise and moderate man who really cared for Spain and was sick of that violence.
Another absolute masterpiece by K&G! I can only imagine what your team could have accomplished with the budget that was available for the movie Napoleon!
Most of the time Napoleon was defending France from outside aggression, the fact that these powers often lost and had to give up territory does not make him 'hungry for land' or an 'egomaniac' , these were the terms of the peace treaties in those days. Secondly, Napoleon was repeatedly offering peace terms to Britain in the late 1800s but the balance of power had shifted so much that they didn't want peace - even Russia whom Napoleon was generous to and offered an alliance turned their back on him (rejecting a marriage alliance, and making secret preparations to overthrow him when able while pretending to be his friend). The Austrian emperor who was defeated no less than 5 times by the French and whom Napoleon allowed to keep his throne, was complicit in overthrowing Napoleon the first time he was comprehensively defeated. Prior to this outcome, during the 1813 peace negotiations, the Austrian diplomat Metternich (who was supposedly representing Napoleon's ally through marriage), effectively derailed these peace negotiations in order to achieve this outcome, and Britain again refused to negotiate or accept a ceasefire. Why? Because the ruling class of the time despised what he was (pretty much a commoner), and what he stood for (radical change in favour of the people - albeit with French influence). Put simply, the ruling elite couldn't tolerate any lessening of their social or territorial power, and they couldn't take loosing to him for so long. I recommend 'Napoleon a life' by Andrew Roberts, for a balanced account of his life. The book is a masterpiece.
A very good video on possibly the most important man of the last 200 years. One point you should have mentioned was the fact that because of the weakness of Spain, the Spanish colonies in the New World were largely able to break free and become independent, thus Napoleon indirectly caused the liberation of these colonies. Excellent video nonetheless.
Another great video from K&G! If this turns into a revived series on Napoleon, there's one little thing that needs addressed: Devin's prononciation of the "in" sound in French. It seems to be the only (except the "ou" sound) thing about Devin's pronunciation of French names. The in sound is found in English when you say "St. George" for example. And the "ou" is just a regular "u" sound. Besides, K&G is really rocking hard the world of historical documentaries on TH-cam! Cheers!
He put an end to the horror of the civil war in France and resisted for 15 years the European coalition which wanted to suppress the achievements of the Revolution. His empire did not come from a desire for expansionism, but from the simple fact that he won the wars that were declared against him each time. With the exception of his Russian campaign, provoked by his hubris (he was undefeated in 1812), Napoleon remains in my opinion an authentic genius and popular hero. He believed dictatorship was necessary to impose his emancipatory reforms.
Right after the part about how Napoleon was viewed in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) it would be nice to hear it contrasted with how he was viewed by many in Poland (the lands of the recently annihilated Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), as a liberator! Although, some Poles (like Tadeusz Kościuszko, for example) mistrusted and disliked Napoleon, as someone who was using them instrumentaly, dangling the prospect of freedom in front of them, while asking to pay a heavy price for it in blood, and sometimes fight against other peoples fighting for their freedom. Nonetheless, Napoleon is still mentioned in the Polish national anthem, which includes the line: "Bonaparte gave us an example how to be victorious". The song was originally sang by the Polish Legions fighting alongside the French since 1797.
While we have a low opinion of Napoleon here in Portugal because of the invasion and the atrocities commited, the Poles had pretty good reason for fighting alongside him. He gave them hope for the restoration of their country( even though his intentions weren't exactly noble) after Poland was unjustly partitioned. Poland was in the right in fighting alongside him against the very nations that partitioned it (Prussia, Russia and Austria). Prince Poniatowski is one of my favourite marshals, his fall at Leipzig was most tragic. I hope he is still loved and hounored in Poland. 🇵🇹❤️🇵🇱
Napoleon is clearly a character made by History, and by those who write it; like Philip II & Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar & Augustus, Charlemagne & Frederick Barbarossa, Gengis Khan, Cao Cao, Baybars, Suleiman the Magnificent, Oda Nobunaga, Hideyoshi Toyotomi & Ieyasu Tokugawa and so many others. He was a tyran by centralising a complete control, but for a lot of changes that needed to happen and were stalled for decades (if not centuries) because of too many people with a little power would squander the efforts away in petty desires. The same would be said however about those who opposed him, being themselves nothing less than absolute monarchies which, ironically, France was also an inspiration because of the reign of the Sun King (especially in its early reign). He was a reformer because he was successful in his governance, especially since he had many councelors and subject experts in his decisions and law-making, not syphocants, outside of his clear obsession to be efficient and actually successful. Many of his adversaries won because they ended up imitating his example/successes, not the other way around. Many revolutions happened after his passing through Europe because his civil code did show it was possible to consider the needs and rights of the people, without even losing the 'power' those same monarchies/aristocarcies were so afraid of losing their status under the umbrella of 'anarchy'. Again, he was 'the best of the worse man', the example of an efficient dictator adored by the common people, the charm from absolute power over freedom in order to make actual changes. Centralisation of squandered resources spent by petty factions in the name of national efficiency. The lesser evil that brough liberalism in europe.
Okay, seems like no one mentions this, so I will. In the video they referred to Napoleon III as "his cousin" this may lead to confusion, as he was Napoleon I's nephew. In the video they seem to be talking to the relationship between Charles-Louis (Nap III) and Napoleon's son, Napoleon II (So many f-ing Napoleons, I know) Point is, Napoleon III formed the 2nd French Empire, he was Napoleon's nephew, and Napoleon II's cousin.
Interestingly, Napoleon II was not considered a legitimate ruler of France (he was emperor as an infant for a few weeks, then exiled to Austria) However you see how his cousin recognized his legitimacy by making himself the third, rather than the second.
The thing is, one sentence later they say Napoleon I was his uncle, which is correct. Maybe someone had to rush the end of the script and just made a mistake.
This is one of the best unbiased videos I have seen about Napoleon. I'm actually quite surprised to see it come from a British history channel, considering how much British people seem to hate any positive mention of him. Fantastic video that only made me love your channel more, even though I've been following for a long time.
Minute 9:30, the person in the animation is actually Eugène de Beauharnais as Viceroy of Italy, not Napoleon. A common error since the painter, Andrea Appiani, also did a portrait of Napoleon that looked similar, but with a laurel wreath on his head. ;)
Yes, he was adopted by Napoleon in 1806. I think he is recorded as a competent field commander, unlike Napoleon's brothers. Very interesting biography.. and died a sudden death at only 42. @@HighPriestFuneral
Quick correction Napoleon III was the nephew of the Napoleon I. Napoleon III’s parents where Louis Napoleon’s younger brother and hortense, the the step daughter of Napoleon.
Napolean being regarded as both a reformer and a tyrant stands witness to his greatness as an accomplished leader and ruler. Enemies disregarded his efficiency and his people considered him a saviour. A truly fascinating person!
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor also deserves a video like that one. A man who firmly put the Habsburgs in the center of Europe's affairs but was also responsible for the Netherlands Independence war from Spain
I'd make a distinction between dictator and tyrant. Napoleon certainly was a dictator, but calling him a tyrant is a stretch imo. Or if you do call him a tyrant, you could call most absolute rulers throughout history tyrants, which kind of makes it irrelevant imo. Tyrant: a cruel and oppressive ruler. Dictator: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force. Overall people under Napoleon lived fairly well compared to other nations at that time. Taxation was improved, the judicial branch improved, people were treated more equal and fairly, there was stability (mostly), ... Did Napoleon sometimes took harsh measures when needed? Sure. But this wasn't different from any other ruler at that time and before/after him.
You cannot be a dictator, without necessarily becoming a tyrant. Something, somewhere, will slip through because of your government. Napoleon for example retracted plenty of progressive and important civil rights legislation passed under the Revolution. The fact that all of Europe was ruled by Tyrants, does not exclude him.
For those initiated in the world of anime. The Legend of the Galactic Heroes has a VERY similar character to Napoleon. Reinhard von Lohengramm, is basically the equivalent of Napoleon if it were in space and space combat being very reminescent of the Napoleonic era. Both a reformer and after he has taken ultimate power of the empire, skirting the line of tyrant and reformer.
Reinhard is pretty much an amalgamation of Napoleon, Frederick and Alexander. Suuuch a good anime, really nice to see it being acknowledged in the wild! I can't speak for the remake or the novels it is based on, but the original OVAs stand easily among the greatest pieces of media of the last century.
Just finished watching the anime 3 weeks ago, I love Reinhard but Yang wenli is the guy I would realistically side with if push came to shove. Oh hail, liberty bell, true freedom for all men!
I would say he was slightly ahead of his time because he modernized warfare and legal codes but at the same time like many leaders of his time found democracy to be too unstable to work. To be fair he may have been right. France tried the whole Republic thing for a lot of years and all it lead to was corruption, chaos, and the reign of terror. In terms of him being a war monger I think that is an undeserved reputation. Kings of his era were always fighting as pointed out in the video. The only reason Napoleon got a bad rep from it was because he constantly won. No one before him ever won so much that they could redraw the map of Europe. So he gets a bad reputation for doing the thing that one's own nation would ask of our political and military leaders when faced with war which is to win. I would argue that even the invasion of Russia while clearly a bad move on a military level was driven by a desire to stop Britain from constantly bankrolling more and more wars against France.
A great summary! Thanks very much for producing this overview. I'm new to your channel, and hope to find some more depth studies of historic figures :)
I feel that men like Napoleon and Caesar truly cared about what they were doing in the beginning, but they eventually succumbed to the size of the power they created for themselves.
I feel like it’s pretty rare to find figures like this who are just one or the other. In most cases you have military reformers who gradually turn into tyrants either because of the temptation of power or because they find it as the only way to actually accomplish their reforms.
I would argue that Napoleon had a different goal in mind which later was expanded by him and the image he created about himself to sell to the french, which forced him to behave in certain ways to keep said image alive. That being said there are 2 things i would like to highlight about Napoleon's rule. 1- Napoleon was a strong supporter of the revolution but all the bickering and corruption made him bitter towards them. The "Conseil des Cinq-Cents" (Council of five hundred) even perform electoral fraud to kick oppositions from seats. They were very unpopular, allegedly, with the people of Paris and some even claim that they had little executive power. The coup however is an interesting read since it involves Napoleon's brother Lucien Bonaparte who was a member of said council, a fake Jacobin Rebellion rumor, two very angry Jacobin deputies that refused to leave, Napoleon entering unarmed to deliver a speech, a stabbing event a la Julius Caesar that might not be true which forced the guard to intervene in support of Napoleon. If this was planned or improvised was never revealed. But by the end of the Coup, Napoleon could shape France into whatever he desired but Lucien opposed Napoleon on that too and when Napoleon started playing with the idea of declaring himself emperor Lucien went into self-imposed exile to Italy, he tried to escape to the USA but was captured by the British who admired Lucien's Anti-Napoleon ideas, in a twist of fate when Napoleon returned for a 2nd time the brothers reunited as allies and in the end both brothers died of stomach cancer. 2- Draft/Conscription. I hope this is mentioned in later videos but the reform on how to mobilize the French population was an important if not the main reason Napoleon managed to succeed in most of the wars. No other nation in Europe had the institutions in place to mobilize its population like France under Napoleon plus no other nation had such a huge population to draft from in the first place. After this massive conscription imposed by Napoleon many other nations started imitating it. Just for context France mobilized more than 1m troops while Britain could only gather around 320,000 at the height of the Napoleonic wars when back in 1789 France had an army of only 255,000.
You'right about the conscription but let's not forget that the coalition made up altogether had forced that outnumbered Napoleon. That's rightly the huge population of France that allowed the latter to survive on many front battlefield
How was he different from other monarchs of the time? If you take issue with his absolute power you should also be against the monarchs of other countries at the time. Also is a tyrant bad if he is, in general, good for humanity?
It is interesting to see and read about how the words "tyrant" and "dictator" change flavor of their meaning in the eyes of the public plebs, based on the circumstances of an era in question...
Good points presented on both perspectives. Just a bit of correction: Napoleon III is a son of Louis Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon I. This will make Napoleon III a nephew, not a cousin of Napoleon I.
Casaulty also counts wounded soldiers. So during the 20 year span 1 soldier could be woulded like 3 times. There was a general who was wounded like 8 times (epic history tv has a video on that).
I am a history professor and just saw the movie. I made a review on it as well if people want to know what was historically accurate in it and what was fiction. He was a very complex man. One part child of the enlightenment, other side dictator.
This video seems to be far more nuanced than the Napoleon movie that just came out. Haven't seen it, but from what I heard it is unfair towards the First Consul. Generally speaking, I think the French have a more positive memory of Napoleon because the stability he brought and the reforms he made. He was also a military tyrant which brought both death and nationalism throughout the continent. A complex legacy for sure.
Yeah, from the trailers alone, the battles and the cinematography looked epic. That would be the only reason why I would watch it. I thought it would have been a great idea to just focus on Napoleon from his days in military school to crowning himself as emperor since there is just so much to cover. Probably would have been a much better movie. Also if French people were involved in the production.
Kings and Generals I hope you make a topic about the country’s colonies during the Napoleonic War and also The wars of the Americas that led to gained independence from Spain and Portugal.
Definitely a Reformer & a Liberator. Never forget that it's Napoleon's civil code that became a template of several European nation. Napoleon was also the first Egyptologist saving Egyptians from famine and disease. He maybe an atheist, but Napoleon gave freedom to worship in both Christian and Muslim. He was only demonized by the monarchs. BTW, Napoleon wasn't exactly a midget. He's 5'-7" which was a standard height in that time and also very good looking.
A tyrant is one who comes to power by illegitimate means; it does not describe governing style. Some of the best leaders of archaic and classical Greece were tyrants and most were also reformers. So . . . Both.
Napoleon is like the ideal hero from modern day entertainment: someone with exceptional qualities and a complex personality and most importantly of all a darker side. Based on what people demand from their books and movies nowadays he has got it all. Strange though, how some people believe that to be a good historical hero these days, one has to be a totally one-dimensional Goody Two-Shoes...
He may be deafeted in his last stand, but he conquer the Universe. Nobody remember thus who oppose him, but even after thouthands years, people will be remember legend of the Napoleon.
they never mention that, that's why the Germsn became bitter towards the English for taking all of the credit and it was one of many reasons why it led to WW1@@Anddriiyy
🎥 Join our TH-cam members and patrons to unlock exclusive content! Our community is currently enjoying deep dives into the life and career of Sulla, First Punic War, Pacific War, history of Prussia, Italian Unification Wars, Russo-Japanese War, Albigensian Crusade, and Xenophon’s Anabasis. Become a part of this exclusive circle: th-cam.com/channels/MmaBzfCCwZ2KqaBJjkj0fw.htmljoin or patron: www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals and Paypal paypal.me/kingsangenerals as well!
Napoleon restated slavery when he came to power. Like wtf, that was a huge thing that happened. The outlawing of slavery at the time was really revolutionary when the French Revolution happened. You did not even mention why France lost Haiti and why the conflict even happened in the first place.
You could have said why real fast . Are you serious? You also state he brought equality, did he? Partially If he actually did not reinstate slavery, then maybe you would be far more correct on that statement.
You have talked about slavery before and I am just surprised you don’t even talk about in this which was part of the history of Napoleon.
@@Sossasammy I swear you guys are bots.
@@Sossasammy slavery is based af
Both possibilities for Napoleon are not mutually exclusive
@@Sossasammy The Arab slave trade ended only in 2007
Does that fact matter to you?
In Poland Napoleon generally considered a hero and a liberator. To this very day Polish national anthem says "Bonaparte showed us how we should prevail". After the Third Partition of Poland in 1795 Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ceased to exist and was divived by Prussia (later Germany), Austria and Russia - empires which were hated by their new Polish subjects. Many thousands of Poles saw Napoleon as their greatest chance at regaining independence and enlisted into Napoleonic armies, often becoming some of his most fanatically loyal soldiers. Example of that can be found in the Battle of Somosierra, when Polish cavalry conducted a suicide charge at Spanish fortified positions at Napoleon's order, almost single handedly winning the battle and opening the road to Madrid for the French. Polish prince and nephew of the last king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Józef Poniatowski, was even nominated by Napoleon to the rank of Marshall, becoming the only non-French Marshall of France in history (sadly dying shortly after in the Battle of Leipzig). Napoleon's victories over Prussians and Austrians allowed for the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw, which Poles hoped would be the first step on the road to rebuilding old Commonwealth. One of Napoleon's stated goals/propaganda justifications for his invasion of Russia was liberation of occupied Polish lands. Napoleon remained a strong national symbol for Poles even after his defeat. In 19th century Polish positivist literature there is even a trope of an old, disgruntled Napoleonic Wars veteran who fanatically, against all odds, believes some Napoleon's heir will soon come, so he's always prepared with a sabre near hand to answer the call when it comes
Too much nonsense, where is the talk about the german states? Where about the netherlands? Where about switzerland? Where about italy?
Where about spain?
Where about portugal?
And finally where about russia?
No you dont care about that, you are just a perfect hypocrit.
This channel somehow avoids history of Poland for years now, bit sad tbh
Great info, thank you
Wow that's really interesting, having a foreigner in your national anthem
Of course someone is going to be very good at governing when they have an army to force their will.
Napoleon was definitely a reformer and a tyrant, just look at Caesar, he may have been a power hungry megalomaniac, but he was very good in governing, he enacted and laid the ground work for many projects that aimed to stabilize the Roman Empire, and these projects were enacted later on by Augustus
and for both of them, people they conquered wanted someone with full power. Napoleon couldnt implement the revolution reforms in all countries he conquered as fast as possible. They expected a king to take their place thats why he was an emperor. He needed to prject the same power a king would, despite not having the same noble blood.
Lets not forget how he handled the gaulic affair...
He reinstated slavery after the revolutionaries abolished it. Enough said. An exceptional individual, yes. But a monster, also.
@@MM-un3obmeh theres more slaves today than at any point yet we dont do shit about it so 🤷🏽♂️
@@MM-un3obSaying that Napoleon is monster is stupis AF
You told a better story about Napoleon in 20 minutes, than Ridley Scott could in 3 hours.
Lol
It wasn't hard tbh
Ridley Scott is a hippie boomer now so it's not a surprised he failed to tell a good faith depiction and retelling of Napoleon.
No shit! I probably didn't get half way through it.
Really? Wow, will not be watching it now@ThatGuy-bh9qh
His actions, the populism he had to rely on, military achievements and the discussion upon his role as a whole reminds me a lot of Julius Caesar. The parallels are huge. Take the land reforms for example or the attempt to lower the importance of the assemblies by overcrowding them with loyal fellows.
And Hitler. Hitler and Napoleon are so similar it’s crazy. Their invasions of Russia and how they would miscalculate Russias response.
hitler is not that similar to napoleon. Hitler lost the battle similiarly but Hitler was far worse and should not be comapred to Napoleon in any way other than military achievement and even then Napoleon was clearly the better@@Shapar95
@@dominusdone5023 I don’t know if napoleon was better militarily - the third reich conquered more people and land militarily than napoleon. Why should they not be compared. Hitler and Napoleon restored national pride, built a big empire founded on megalomaniacal desire for power and then lead their people to utter ruin before their shameful defeat to their enemies. It’s literally copy paste stories. It’s surreal.
@@Shapar95 One of the biggest differences in my opinion is, that Caesar and Napoleon let pretty much from the front. Their battles many times were won by their genius or courage, no matter what you would say about their intensions. This went as far as the coalition avoiding enemy armies in battle, when Napoleon was present, because he had such an impact on the outcome. That is not true for Hitler.
@@dominusdone5023 Hitler, unlike the other 2, went into conquest mode with a huge advantage and lost in humiliating fashion and relatively quickly by warfare standards.
Napoleon and Caesar were both constantly winning battles wildly outnumbered by utilizing genius level battlefield command and control.
Hitler had a few generals like Mannstein who were tactically amazing but it's sad that Hitler himself ever gets mentioned in the same conversation as the other 2. Those guys are in the same conversation as Alexander and Hannibal and Genghis Khan. Hitler isn't fit to shine any of their shoes as a strategist. In fact his career as a strategist can basically be summed up in 'big giant swing after big giant swing that stopped paying off and cost him everything due to inflexibility'. That's the opposite of a legendary commander lol. That's an NFL coach who would otherwise be shit-canned at the end of a season.
Excellent video. Napoleon is what inspired me to take up history as a profession. I think his reign and the debate around it is one of the best examples of the importance of a nuanced view of "great" or "evil" characters. Few characters are purely evil and few are ever good. It's always a mixed bag and what comes out of that bag depends on the attitudes of those remembering and not always on fact.
@@amh9494Great men are rarely “good”
@@magivkmeister6166 you ignored my first paragraph, great. Not with having then. People really are tiresome. Trite shite is the order of the day.
Does it pay well?
@@magivkmeister6166
So, you can't be good and great at the same time? 😅
Napoleon walks this thin line of being both. He certainly, especially by non French people, is seen as a tyrant more than a reformer, but for France and also for the future of Europe he has meant a lot which this video nicely points out.
In my opinion Napoleon is a very complex person that shows you can be a tyrant while simultaneously be a great reformer.
Another great example is Charlamagne, a tyrant for sure but also a great reformer for Europe as a whole.
Same with Chinggis Khaan. He was a brutal conqueror, but was also a founder of a nation, its identity, its laws, and its script.
I think the foreign aristocrats saw him as a tyrant. Pretty sure the masses didn't give a fuck or thought of their new freedom as pretty neat. You know being a serf is a pretty shitty life. Of course also some bought in the church and state propaganda but I mean the whole of Europe rose in revolutionary flames in 1848 taking Napoleon civil code and administration as inspiration.
whether Napoleon is viewed as a tyrant or not has nothing to do whether the opinion comes from a Frenchman or not but rather whether or not it comes from a Briton.
With possibly the exception of rare Britons educated in the field of European history... who obviously have a better understanding.
This following link of British ORIGIN makes it clear th-cam.com/video/bxQ4TcTcPbI/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=IntelligenceSquared
@@NangDooferi mean the first half of the Coalition Wars were just 'we monarchs want to execute all you fuckers over in France!!!!' and then the second half were 'and we want to kill Napoleon very specifically!!!!'
@@ElBandito
Well Genghis khan is a tyrant and barbaric conqueror for anyone not Mongolian he by the standard of his day was very cruel and brutal and his unified empire fell in about 50 years and the big khanates fell in less than 170 years
He does strut the fine line between both and it depends also where you're from.
In Croatia, when I was taught History in School, Napoleon was often portrayed in a more positive light due to how he treated our people and policies he enacted during the brief period we were under French rule. Unlike the Hungarians and Austrians, Napoleon treated us better, gave us better rights and even consider us rather highly due to i believe him being impressed by our soldiers' performance in his legion. So he tends to be portrayed as a bit of liberator to us than a Tyrant due to this.
I'm Hungarian and we learn Napoleon had an offer for Hungarians. Hungarians would have had to join to him then he would have ended the Habsburg rule. But the Hungarian nobility (who were one of the most backward nobility in Europe) rather chose the feudal Habsburgs than Napoleon who was the symbol of the French Revolution.
Btw I think if Hungarians would have joined him it's uncertain if it would have been better for Hungary or he would have destroyed the Habsburgs. Napoleon still would have lost in my opinion, Hungary wasn't that big military power at that time. Also, you can see what he did with Polish people, they joined to him then he didn't help to create an independent Poland what he promised.
Oh and when the Hungarians refused Napoleon 's offer the Hungarian nobility even attacked him. 😅 This was the battle of Győr in 1809 (Battle of Raab in international history) the only one Hungarian battle in Napoleonic wars. Of course Napoleon easily destroyed the Hungarian army.
@@sectorgovernor He create a pupet Poland who had a free hand on his domestic policy or almost.
@@Bracus.Reghusk Oh I didn't know it. Then this state must have had short life because I don't remember it from maps
I guess old Ben Kenobi was right. "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view."
He’s a historical lightning bolt. Came out of nowhere and changed a continent. A truly “great” man (if you subscribe to that theory of history) with fantastic subordinates.
I think great man history is generally bs but for sure Napoleon is an exception and truly was a great man that changed the world
Excluding the subjugation of undeveloped countries, no French leader from 900 AD to 2023 AD was as militarily successful.
I have argued that Napoleon besides Martin Luther (Protestant Reformation) or God/Jesus (Christianity) have had a bigger impact on Europe. Much of the ideas of democracies, laws, and republics would not have spread throughout Europe if it wasn't for Napoleon's military successes.
@@alex_spartan1805I would say Greece and Rome. Rome conquering Greece was the single most significant event in European history, if not world history. The writings of the Greeks inspired the Romans, and in turn the writings, teachings, and philosophies of some the greatest minds of those two civilizations inspired and influenced everyone that came after including Napoleon, who wanted to follow in the mold of Alexander and Caesar. Guys like Cicero, Plato, Aristotle and others influenced just about every brilliant thinker that came after.
He didn't come out of nowhere, he came out of the French Revolution. The pattern of an individual charismatic leader arising from a period of revolt and breakdown of institutions is quite common.
If you ever find yourself in Paris I recommend a visit to Napoleons tomb . His sarcophagus is huge and to be honest it’s visually stunning . Les Invalides has a lot of portraits of Napoleon and his generals as well . The whole building really is beautiful.
There are so many beautiful places in Paris to visit but I wouldn’t miss out on this
Looking at the ongoing messes in the legislative branches worldwide, it is easy to see why people may feel attracted to Napolean or Caesar's style of forcing stuff through. It's frustrating to see politicians in parliament playing a stupid political game and unable to get anything done.
EXACTLY. That’s exactly why a one party state is popular some places. Undemocratic though it is
More and more I'm becoming okay with military dictatorship if it leads to better governance. Democracy isn't worth it if no one gets what they want, but you can't simply put the genie back in the bottle. Especially with the internet, there are too many rights that humans consider worth dying to protect, and thus its very hard to go full empire today. That said, a military backed business oligarchy could very easily be done, even in America with the right governors on their side.
@@geordiejones5618that's kind of what hints of FDRs and Huey Long's policies were in the 1930s for the USA. FDR did in some regard did like what Mussolini in Italy and Hitler in Germany were doing early on, but the majority of people forget that/igrone it because WW2 changed that narrative.
@@geordiejones5618 not better governance, EFFECTIVE governance. The moment a military dictatorship is in place, the rulers effectively step all over everything you take for granted today.
Well i know much later on after the Napoleonic War there is another man from Prussia who also did the same thing. And by his iron hand and Prussia military might through blood. A new nation was united and born. Not by politician in Parliament with their speeches and the rule of majority.
Quite a nice irony example i must said.
God the art work is getting so damn good. This channel is more than a gem, it’s a miracle.
About the image of Napoleon in modern Spain: after how disastrous the reign of Ferdinand VII was, and the legacy of constant internal instability and military coups it left, is not rare for people in my country to wonder "maybe things would had gone better if Napoleon had won the war". There is this idea that if Joseph Bonaparte had stayed as king, liberal reforms would had actually taken hold. And that in that way, the traditional and absolutist governments that followed afterwards and held the country back, wouldn't had happened.
Thats what happens when the masses are uneducated and blindly follow their religous leaders. How is bringing a country a constitution with liberal ideas and freedoms being an antichrist? 😆
Joseph Bonaparte unfortunately was a freemason...
@@talldreamyopposumliberalism is bad .
@@las_espannasLiberalism is the principle behind the constitutional right that gives you the freedom to say that.
@@las_espannasI would like to know if you have sources for that, I'm interested. I know Jean lannes was one for sure and other heads of the french regime. I personally don't think the current Freemasons and the old orders are the same. Might be naivety on my part.
He is also seen in a positive light here in Latin America, since his actions in Spain set the independence wars in motion.
You are giving Napoleon undue credit, since it was never Napoleon's intention for Latin America to become independent. Napoleon wanted to conquer Portugal and Spain and their empires, in that he utterly failed, losing the war. So don't give him credit for something he unintentionally help set in motion.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictatorsNapoleon captured the Spanish royal family and created a power vaccum in Spanish Latin America. In Portugal the French invasion was foreseen and the entire Portuguese Court moved to Brazil(my country) where It was established a new seat of government in Rio de Janeiro. Despite this, it helped immensely our independence since a Braganza prince, Dom Pedro I, helped us to gain liberty from Portugal 14 years later.
@@adrianocarvalho1549 Exactly, it was Dom Pedro, Bolivar, San Martin, etc that won their own independence for Latin America. Don't give any credit to Napoleon for blundering into a long war in Iberia that would eventually lead to his downfall in defeat.
@@RidleyScottOwnsFailedDictators It was Haiti that Freed Latin America, the Haitian flag can be seen on Colombia,Ecuador and Venezuela . Alexander Petition gave them guns,place to stay and Soldiers. It is disgusting that Latin Americans talk about the enemy of Haiti Napoleon in a positive light. Haiti was betrayed in the end by Bolivar refusing to recognize their independence which lead to more sanctions on Haiti , It is disgusting that no one talks about this
@@theultimateartist4153Haiti was a an internal mess after the massacre of the white slave owners. They were replaced by black slave owners. Toussaint himself was a slave owner. This is the hard reality. Haiti has been betrayed by its own leaders in first place
It was the coalition monarchs that are responsible for the wars as they wanted to return to Europe the pre 1789 status. Napoleon moderated any of the excesses that had occurred during the Revolution. The war in Spain happened because Manuel Godoy wanted to get out of the alliance with France and join Prussia but then withdrew these plans after news of Jena. It was Tsar Alexander that issued an ultimatum to France to withdraw from Poland and Prussia in 1812 and Napoleon ignored this as this as they had agreed to the settlements at Tilsit 1807. He got rid of feudalism, serfdom, religious prosecution and brought meritocracy, private ownership and equality before the law to the countries in Europe. He took the title of Emperor as royalists with British backing tried to assassinate him and therefore need a legitimate heir incase he died to avoid plunging France back into to a civil war amongst various faction like during the revolution. All males in France had vote to elect candidates to be put forward as candidates in local and national assemblies which unlike other countries which ordinary people had no political input.
Really? It was the coalition monarchs who told him to atack and brutalize Portugal which was no threat to him whatsoever? Did they force him to invade Russia because he thought he had the right to chose with which countries continental European nations were allowed to trade with?
It’s also important to mention the that even though napoleon made some positive reforms, his rule was also horrible in many ways. Most notably, he hated blacked people and reinstated slavery in Hati with the express purpose of “forever halting the advancement of blacks in the world” he also destroyed women’s rights in France and personally hated gay people. So yeah, not great.
Napoleon had an offer of peace in 1813 made by the Austrians which would have resulted in an end to the coalition wars. He only had to retreat behind the rhine river but could keep in power over France (still a lot bigger then modern France and a huge expansion compared to the french kingdom). Napoleon refused to give up his empire and paid the price for it.
@@masterplokoon8803 What do you mean ? The Portuguese join the British coalition after betraying their alliance with France.
@@noobster4779 When Napoleon ask his marshal and best friend Jean Lannes to prepare Italy to his ascension to the throne by circumventing any dissidents, Lannes answered after refusing multiple time Infront of an enraged Napoleon, "I can not find it in me to put back the shackles to a country I just Freed". Napoleon was so shocked that he couldn't say a word. He didn't press the matter further to him and anyone else.
I think we shouldn't forget how important were the Ideals of the revolution in the heart of the French and how much they wanted to spread it to their neighbours.
except for spain and 1812 Russia (which could be argued was caused by Russia breaking a treaty), all the other wars were defensive wars. he had war imposed on him constantly and he kept whooping ass. not fair to call him a war monger.
There is also his invasion of Egypt…and Portugal…and Haiti
@@scott2452 i didn’t count Egypt because he wasn’t in charge then and wasn’t his final decision - that’s not to say that he wasn’t for the idea cos he obviously was. Portugal I included as part of the peninsular war. Haiti is too complicated discuss and i cba lol.
@@pacnite
It really isn't. Revolutionary France gets rid of slavery. Napoleon reintroduces it in the colonies, and sends an army to re-enslave people in Haiti. His army gets its butt kicked, and this move also angers the British.
The leaders of Haiti even sent emissaries to Napoleon, but all he did was throw them in the dungeon rather than even hear what they had to say.
Also, let's stop pretending that Napoleon didn't repeatedly reject generous peace offers that most nations were willing to accept as part of a new European balance of power.
Napoleon's biggest weakness was always diplomacy. His decision to execute the Duke of Enghien was probably one of the most brain dead move of his career, as it pretty much turned everyone against him. He didn't understand how his continental system was simply not feasible, nor did he understand that invading a country and installing your family and friends as rulers isn't going to run well with the people.
So yes, Napoleon AND the British bear the brunt of the blame for the wars of the coalition in the 1800s. Their actions destabilized the continent.
*8:03** The Arc de Triomphe was achieved only in 1836...*
*Napoleon I never saw the thing anywhere near finished.*
(Although he ordered a wooden mock-up to be erected in 1810 for his entry into Paris with his new wife Marie-Louise)
Another excellent presentation. He showed all of the traits of human nature from good to bad. Ambition was first and foremost.
Thank you K& G!
He was a brilliant tyrant reformer who deserved a far better film than the joke he’s just gotten.
Napoleon (2002) is atleast a faithful adaption compared to Scott's
I love this channel! I really hope that you continue this Napoleonic series. I would also love to see a series about the French settlement of and wars in North America.
"Was Napoleon a Military Tyrant or a Reformer?"
Yes.
“I am the successor, not of Louis XVI, but of Charlemagne.” -Napoleon
So he thought himself successor of the one who was considered the "first emperor of the HRE" ?
@@HashimyHuseinihe is saying Louis isn’t his equal or predecessors. Only the great Charlemagne Frankish emperor and conqueror is who he succeeds and is his equal.
Louis XVI is a bum
Music buffs will know that Beethoven was a fan of the ideals of the French Revolution, and planned a tribute to Napoleon the Liberator in the form of his Third or "Bonaparte" Symphony.
When Napoleon declared himself emperor, Beethoven was so enraged he crossed out the title and changed it to "Heroic Symphony *Dedicated To The Memory Of A Great Man*".
You can do an image search for the title page of the Eroica Symphony and see that old Ludwig's eraser went straight through the page he was so mad lol.
He even named himself "Louis" instead of Ludwig
Ah yes, after the film of Napoleon by Ridley Scott released now Kings & Generals uploading 2 videos about Napoleon on this week ❤❤🔥🔥.
Well, as you've said in Spain his reputation IS pretty terrible, for selfexplanatory reasons.
The only thing that helps him a bit IS that the King he deposed is widely considered to be the worst King we've ever had, which is really high bar to clear.
Anyway, the war was UTTERLY brutal. It's Up there with the spanish civil war in terms of total casualties, which is honestly mindblowing.
Not everywhere in Spain. In Catalonia we regard him a little bit better, for the special treatment he gave to the region
@@GuisherobestThat was mostly Suchet, the marshal whom was tasked with that Area.
Spanish people should not forget that their king invaded French during the revolution and were decisively defeated during the War of the Roussillon at the Battle of the Sierra Negra.
Maybe the Spanish guerillas shouldn't have fought dishonorably attacking both French and Spanish. All that to put back on the throne an entitled tyrant, with an allied that pillaged your own country, that would become a ruler as useless as his father who legit abdicated to Napoleon because he didn't like to rule. I mean imagine fighting for the enslavement of your own people for a Prince in exile that do not participate in the campaign. Makes no sense.
@@olivierpujol8772 they were a people drugged by the Catholic priests. The criminal bandits were on heaven during that period and they did not leave Spain after the French defeat. French occupation was just an excuse for their exaction. Religion can be very dangerous when used for political reasons. Spain became a total third level power because of them. Joseph was a wise and moderate man who really cared for Spain and was sick of that violence.
Another absolute masterpiece by K&G! I can only imagine what your team could have accomplished with the budget that was available for the movie Napoleon!
"Cet homme, dont j’admire le génie et dont j’abhorre le despotisme"
"This man, whose genius I admire and whose despotism I abhor"
- Chateaubriand -
Chateaubriand the legitimist who support the house of Bourbon and the absolutist monarchy ?
Yes
Both. But it's unquestionable that he's one of the greatest military geniuses of all time. Perhaps the very best.
Another fantastic video by K&G. Always working hard!
"A Great, Bad Man" - What a way to go out, if that's how I were to be remembered I'd call it a success.
Napoleon was the greatest man for France and Europe as a whole. The new ideals he brought forward and those who inspired will never be forgotten.
Most of the time Napoleon was defending France from outside aggression, the fact that these powers often lost and had to give up territory does not make him 'hungry for land' or an 'egomaniac' , these were the terms of the peace treaties in those days. Secondly, Napoleon was repeatedly offering peace terms to Britain in the late 1800s but the balance of power had shifted so much that they didn't want peace - even Russia whom Napoleon was generous to and offered an alliance turned their back on him (rejecting a marriage alliance, and making secret preparations to overthrow him when able while pretending to be his friend). The Austrian emperor who was defeated no less than 5 times by the French and whom Napoleon allowed to keep his throne, was complicit in overthrowing Napoleon the first time he was comprehensively defeated. Prior to this outcome, during the 1813 peace negotiations, the Austrian diplomat Metternich (who was supposedly representing Napoleon's ally through marriage), effectively derailed these peace negotiations in order to achieve this outcome, and Britain again refused to negotiate or accept a ceasefire. Why? Because the ruling class of the time despised what he was (pretty much a commoner), and what he stood for (radical change in favour of the people - albeit with French influence). Put simply, the ruling elite couldn't tolerate any lessening of their social or territorial power, and they couldn't take loosing to him for so long.
I recommend 'Napoleon a life' by Andrew Roberts, for a balanced account of his life. The book is a masterpiece.
A very good video on possibly the most important man of the last 200 years. One point you should have mentioned was the fact that because of the weakness of Spain, the Spanish colonies in the New World were largely able to break free and become independent, thus Napoleon indirectly caused the liberation of these colonies. Excellent video nonetheless.
A little of column A and a little of column B. But we can all agree he was an icon of greatness.
Another great video from K&G! If this turns into a revived series on Napoleon, there's one little thing that needs addressed: Devin's prononciation of the "in" sound in French. It seems to be the only (except the "ou" sound) thing about Devin's pronunciation of French names. The in sound is found in English when you say "St. George" for example. And the "ou" is just a regular "u" sound.
Besides, K&G is really rocking hard the world of historical documentaries on TH-cam! Cheers!
He put an end to the horror of the civil war in France and resisted for 15 years the European coalition which wanted to suppress the achievements of the Revolution. His empire did not come from a desire for expansionism, but from the simple fact that he won the wars that were declared against him each time. With the exception of his Russian campaign, provoked by his hubris (he was undefeated in 1812), Napoleon remains in my opinion an authentic genius and popular hero. He believed dictatorship was necessary to impose his emancipatory reforms.
He was both. But for Ridley Scotts movie, he was a tyrant. Furthermore, the tyrant was Josephine
I love you and your
documentations, they are always on the top. I´m always eager to see more of your work!
Right after the part about how Napoleon was viewed in the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) it would be nice to hear it contrasted with how he was viewed by many in Poland (the lands of the recently annihilated Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth), as a liberator! Although, some Poles (like Tadeusz Kościuszko, for example) mistrusted and disliked Napoleon, as someone who was using them instrumentaly, dangling the prospect of freedom in front of them, while asking to pay a heavy price for it in blood, and sometimes fight against other peoples fighting for their freedom. Nonetheless, Napoleon is still mentioned in the Polish national anthem, which includes the line: "Bonaparte gave us an example how to be victorious". The song was originally sang by the Polish Legions fighting alongside the French since 1797.
Fun fact that might not be known too much outside of Australia…but our tallest mountain was discovered by a Polish explorer who named it Mt Kosciuszko
@@scott2452 Indeed, Sir Paweł Edmund Strzelecki.
While we have a low opinion of Napoleon here in Portugal because of the invasion and the atrocities commited, the Poles had pretty good reason for fighting alongside him. He gave them hope for the restoration of their country( even though his intentions weren't exactly noble) after Poland was unjustly partitioned. Poland was in the right in fighting alongside him against the very nations that partitioned it (Prussia, Russia and Austria). Prince Poniatowski is one of my favourite marshals, his fall at Leipzig was most tragic. I hope he is still loved and hounored in Poland. 🇵🇹❤️🇵🇱
This channel always provides the best of whatever topic it is showing.
What's wrong with the desire for personal greatness if it is done through the legitimate accomplishment of the needs of a nation or people?
Amen.
Napoleon is clearly a character made by History, and by those who write it; like Philip II & Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar & Augustus, Charlemagne & Frederick Barbarossa, Gengis Khan, Cao Cao, Baybars, Suleiman the Magnificent, Oda Nobunaga, Hideyoshi Toyotomi & Ieyasu Tokugawa and so many others.
He was a tyran by centralising a complete control, but for a lot of changes that needed to happen and were stalled for decades (if not centuries) because of too many people with a little power would squander the efforts away in petty desires. The same would be said however about those who opposed him, being themselves nothing less than absolute monarchies which, ironically, France was also an inspiration because of the reign of the Sun King (especially in its early reign).
He was a reformer because he was successful in his governance, especially since he had many councelors and subject experts in his decisions and law-making, not syphocants, outside of his clear obsession to be efficient and actually successful. Many of his adversaries won because they ended up imitating his example/successes, not the other way around. Many revolutions happened after his passing through Europe because his civil code did show it was possible to consider the needs and rights of the people, without even losing the 'power' those same monarchies/aristocarcies were so afraid of losing their status under the umbrella of 'anarchy'.
Again, he was 'the best of the worse man', the example of an efficient dictator adored by the common people, the charm from absolute power over freedom in order to make actual changes. Centralisation of squandered resources spent by petty factions in the name of national efficiency. The lesser evil that brough liberalism in europe.
Okay, seems like no one mentions this, so I will.
In the video they referred to Napoleon III as "his cousin" this may lead to confusion, as he was Napoleon I's nephew.
In the video they seem to be talking to the relationship between Charles-Louis (Nap III) and Napoleon's son, Napoleon II (So many f-ing Napoleons, I know)
Point is, Napoleon III formed the 2nd French Empire, he was Napoleon's nephew, and Napoleon II's cousin.
Interestingly, Napoleon II was not considered a legitimate ruler of France (he was emperor as an infant for a few weeks, then exiled to Austria)
However you see how his cousin recognized his legitimacy by making himself the third, rather than the second.
The thing is, one sentence later they say Napoleon I was his uncle, which is correct. Maybe someone had to rush the end of the script and just made a mistake.
This is one of the best unbiased videos I have seen about Napoleon. I'm actually quite surprised to see it come from a British history channel, considering how much British people seem to hate any positive mention of him. Fantastic video that only made me love your channel more, even though I've been following for a long time.
Minute 9:30, the person in the animation is actually Eugène de Beauharnais as Viceroy of Italy, not Napoleon. A common error since the painter, Andrea Appiani, also did a portrait of Napoleon that looked similar, but with a laurel wreath on his head. ;)
Isn't that Napoleon's ex-foster son? A touch ironic, in some respect then,
Yes, he was adopted by Napoleon in 1806. I think he is recorded as a competent field commander, unlike Napoleon's brothers. Very interesting biography.. and died a sudden death at only 42. @@HighPriestFuneral
Quick correction Napoleon III was the nephew of the Napoleon I. Napoleon III’s parents where Louis Napoleon’s younger brother and hortense, the the step daughter of Napoleon.
Napoleon was the apotheosis of the Enlightened Despot.
Napolean being regarded as both a reformer and a tyrant stands witness to his greatness as an accomplished leader and ruler. Enemies disregarded his efficiency and his people considered him a saviour. A truly fascinating person!
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor also deserves a video like that one. A man who firmly put the Habsburgs in the center of Europe's affairs but was also responsible for the Netherlands Independence war from Spain
Great video, really enjoying all the napoleon content
I'd make a distinction between dictator and tyrant. Napoleon certainly was a dictator, but calling him a tyrant is a stretch imo. Or if you do call him a tyrant, you could call most absolute rulers throughout history tyrants, which kind of makes it irrelevant imo.
Tyrant: a cruel and oppressive ruler.
Dictator: a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained control by force.
Overall people under Napoleon lived fairly well compared to other nations at that time. Taxation was improved, the judicial branch improved, people were treated more equal and fairly, there was stability (mostly), ... Did Napoleon sometimes took harsh measures when needed? Sure. But this wasn't different from any other ruler at that time and before/after him.
You cannot be a dictator, without necessarily becoming a tyrant. Something, somewhere, will slip through because of your government.
Napoleon for example retracted plenty of progressive and important civil rights legislation passed under the Revolution.
The fact that all of Europe was ruled by Tyrants, does not exclude him.
For those initiated in the world of anime. The Legend of the Galactic Heroes has a VERY similar character to Napoleon. Reinhard von Lohengramm, is basically the equivalent of Napoleon if it were in space and space combat being very reminescent of the Napoleonic era. Both a reformer and after he has taken ultimate power of the empire, skirting the line of tyrant and reformer.
Reinhard is pretty much an amalgamation of Napoleon, Frederick and Alexander. Suuuch a good anime, really nice to see it being acknowledged in the wild! I can't speak for the remake or the novels it is based on, but the original OVAs stand easily among the greatest pieces of media of the last century.
Just finished watching the anime 3 weeks ago, I love Reinhard but Yang wenli is the guy I would realistically side with if push came to shove. Oh hail, liberty bell, true freedom for all men!
I would say he was slightly ahead of his time because he modernized warfare and legal codes but at the same time like many leaders of his time found democracy to be too unstable to work. To be fair he may have been right. France tried the whole Republic thing for a lot of years and all it lead to was corruption, chaos, and the reign of terror. In terms of him being a war monger I think that is an undeserved reputation. Kings of his era were always fighting as pointed out in the video. The only reason Napoleon got a bad rep from it was because he constantly won. No one before him ever won so much that they could redraw the map of Europe. So he gets a bad reputation for doing the thing that one's own nation would ask of our political and military leaders when faced with war which is to win. I would argue that even the invasion of Russia while clearly a bad move on a military level was driven by a desire to stop Britain from constantly bankrolling more and more wars against France.
A great summary! Thanks very much for producing this overview. I'm new to your channel, and hope to find some more depth studies of historic figures :)
Napoleon was a very complex man, and he lived in complicated times. Thanks for an insightful and objective look at the history of his rein.⚔🔥👏
So was Hitler.
Excellent work as always !
I feel that men like Napoleon and Caesar truly cared about what they were doing in the beginning, but they eventually succumbed to the size of the power they created for themselves.
Fantastic videos, great topics, thank you
I feel like it’s pretty rare to find figures like this who are just one or the other. In most cases you have military reformers who gradually turn into tyrants either because of the temptation of power or because they find it as the only way to actually accomplish their reforms.
Very nice and informative video 📹 👍 👌 👏 😀
I dont know what Napoleon was but he was definitely a legend
I would argue that Napoleon had a different goal in mind which later was expanded by him and the image he created about himself to sell to the french, which forced him to behave in certain ways to keep said image alive.
That being said there are 2 things i would like to highlight about Napoleon's rule.
1- Napoleon was a strong supporter of the revolution but all the bickering and corruption made him bitter towards them. The "Conseil des Cinq-Cents" (Council of five hundred) even perform electoral fraud to kick oppositions from seats. They were very unpopular, allegedly, with the people of Paris and some even claim that they had little executive power. The coup however is an interesting read since it involves Napoleon's brother Lucien Bonaparte who was a member of said council, a fake Jacobin Rebellion rumor, two very angry Jacobin deputies that refused to leave, Napoleon entering unarmed to deliver a speech, a stabbing event a la Julius Caesar that might not be true which forced the guard to intervene in support of Napoleon. If this was planned or improvised was never revealed. But by the end of the Coup, Napoleon could shape France into whatever he desired but Lucien opposed Napoleon on that too and when Napoleon started playing with the idea of declaring himself emperor Lucien went into self-imposed exile to Italy, he tried to escape to the USA but was captured by the British who admired Lucien's Anti-Napoleon ideas, in a twist of fate when Napoleon returned for a 2nd time the brothers reunited as allies and in the end both brothers died of stomach cancer.
2- Draft/Conscription. I hope this is mentioned in later videos but the reform on how to mobilize the French population was an important if not the main reason Napoleon managed to succeed in most of the wars. No other nation in Europe had the institutions in place to mobilize its population like France under Napoleon plus no other nation had such a huge population to draft from in the first place. After this massive conscription imposed by Napoleon many other nations started imitating it. Just for context France mobilized more than 1m troops while Britain could only gather around 320,000 at the height of the Napoleonic wars when back in 1789 France had an army of only 255,000.
You'right about the conscription but let's not forget that the coalition made up altogether had forced that outnumbered Napoleon.
That's rightly the huge population of France that allowed the latter to survive on many front battlefield
Why not both? Same with Chinggis Khaan. He was a brutal conqueror, but was also a founder of a nation, its identity, its laws, and its script.
Very great video!
Could you make a video on Simon Bolivar please?
He is both, in equal measure. It's not mutually exclusive, a lot of tyrant are also reformers (Caesar, Cromwell, and Catherine to name a few)
How was he different from other monarchs of the time? If you take issue with his absolute power you should also be against the monarchs of other countries at the time. Also is a tyrant bad if he is, in general, good for humanity?
It is interesting to see and read about how the words "tyrant" and "dictator" change flavor of their meaning in the eyes of the public plebs, based on the circumstances of an era in question...
Isn't that many political/governmental words?
17:18 Napoleon III is Napoléon’s Nephew not cousin
Are you going to do a series of French revolutionary and Napoleonic wars in the kings and generals channel?
The series is already there in the Kings and Generals Channel. Just visit the channel, and search them there. Thanks
@@Philo_Boy Can they do like a remake just like what they did for the Rise of the Ottoman Empire?
Good points presented on both perspectives.
Just a bit of correction: Napoleon III is a son of Louis Bonaparte, brother of Napoleon I. This will make Napoleon III a nephew, not a cousin of Napoleon I.
Casaulty also counts wounded soldiers. So during the 20 year span 1 soldier could be woulded like 3 times. There was a general who was wounded like 8 times (epic history tv has a video on that).
More Napoleon, please. Thank you.
He was both. Military genius and an able statesman. Only few is comparable to him.
Perhaps the greatest gift that Napoleon gave to the entire world is the Napoleonic Code.
I am a history professor and just saw the movie. I made a review on it as well if people want to know what was historically accurate in it and what was fiction. He was a very complex man. One part child of the enlightenment, other side dictator.
He re-established slavèry in French colonies. That's why Haiti fought against him & broke away from France.
@@Horizon429he also banned slavery in malta. And later banned slavery throughout the empire in 1814.
i personally would say, that Napoleon was both a Reformer and a Tyrant
This video seems to be far more nuanced than the Napoleon movie that just came out. Haven't seen it, but from what I heard it is unfair towards the First Consul. Generally speaking, I think the French have a more positive memory of Napoleon because the stability he brought and the reforms he made. He was also a military tyrant which brought both death and nationalism throughout the continent. A complex legacy for sure.
The movie is overall very bad and historically inaccurate , see it as a movie with great battle scenes but nothing more than that.
Yeah, from the trailers alone, the battles and the cinematography looked epic. That would be the only reason why I would watch it. I thought it would have been a great idea to just focus on Napoleon from his days in military school to crowning himself as emperor since there is just so much to cover. Probably would have been a much better movie. Also if French people were involved in the production.
He made the metric system, anyone who invent metric system and banish the imperial system will always be a reformer and a hero.
Then why did he called his regime the French Empire but not the French Meterire?
"I am nothing special, I am merely a result of the madness of my time"
Kings and Generals I hope you make a topic about the country’s colonies during the Napoleonic War and also The wars of the Americas that led to gained independence from Spain and Portugal.
A great reformer, considering his times, with the sprinkles of tyranny that eventually followed.
After watching this, you can't help but feel that napoleon studied Caesar's methods heavily
Was Napoleon a Military Tyrant or a Reformer?
Yes.
This came at the perfect time because I just came back from the new Napoleon movie
Definitely a Reformer & a Liberator. Never forget that it's Napoleon's civil code that became a template of several European nation. Napoleon was also the first Egyptologist saving Egyptians from famine and disease. He maybe an atheist, but Napoleon gave freedom to worship in both Christian and Muslim. He was only demonized by the monarchs. BTW, Napoleon wasn't exactly a midget. He's 5'-7" which was a standard height in that time and also very good looking.
I'm from Rome and to me, Napoleon was a invader; he literally sacked our museums and annexed us directly to France.
Pay back for what Rome did to the rest of the world.
Napoleon was definitely a warmonger, but nobody can deny he was a brilliant man
Napoleon was a brilliant military officer and politician, however his ego played a large part in his downfall. A great bad man indeed!
Interesting point of view, thank you ❤
A tyrant, a reformer and the gigachad of modern era
Metternich was the Gigachad, not Napoleon.
great work!
In my view, Napoleon was not entirely good or bad just grey and ambitious for himself.
Great video. Napoléon III was his nephew not his cousin* 17:16
Technically most of the Napoleonic Wars weren't declared by Napoleon himself. Most of them were actually started (declared) by the coalition nations
A tyrant is one who comes to power by illegitimate means; it does not describe governing style. Some of the best leaders of archaic and classical Greece were tyrants and most were also reformers.
So . . . Both.
Napoleon is like the ideal hero from modern day entertainment: someone with exceptional qualities and a complex personality and most importantly of all a darker side. Based on what people demand from their books and movies nowadays he has got it all. Strange though, how some people believe that to be a good historical hero these days, one has to be a totally one-dimensional Goody Two-Shoes...
Who is he like?
afrancesado
Are you teasing us with a napoleonic wars series remastered?
Nope
for the acient world had caesar, for the 1790s to 1810's we have napoleon
This great video needs more likes! Come on boys!
Napoleon was the last person is history to combine total political power with frontline military genius, just like Alexander and Caesar
He may be deafeted in his last stand, but he conquer the Universe. Nobody remember thus who oppose him, but even after thouthands years, people will be remember legend of the Napoleon.
Absolutely, he deserves a lot of credit for that alone. Under a lesser ruler, France would have crumbled under the internal and external pressure.
@@Anddriiyy Almost true, but everyone still remembers the Duke of Wellington, the one man to truly defeat him on equal footing.
@@The_J0ker29 it's not "his" victory, it's coalition victory, prussian army decide the fate of battle.
they never mention that, that's why the Germsn became bitter towards the English for taking all of the credit and it was one of many reasons why it led to WW1@@Anddriiyy
Those two labels aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.