Well if he wasn't "Great", there won't be a 1.5 hr debate on this point, about 200 years after his death, and that too in a country which was France's arch nemesis.
You could have a debate on any historical leader, of any level prominence, being called great. This debate was a result of the title of Robert's title. I know this is an extreme example, but you could have a debate on Hitler or Stalin being great, if atrocities do prohibit this distinction. Likewise, figures like Richard the Lionheart, or Frederick II Staufer or Charles V, who accomplished a lot, are remembered, but not called 'great'.
Zamoyski claims Napoleon wasn't a great military leader because he used bold and innovative tactics against enemies who didn't. I'm curious what Zamoyski thinks is great leadership if that doesn't apply.
Yes, when people criticize Napoleon's military abilities on the basis that "His enemies eventually adopted his reforms and tactics", I think, so what? That's part and parcel of what a brilliant general is. And even *then* he kept winning battles! He lost at Leipzig because the Allies adopted a strategy of defeating his marshals until they could bring overwhelming force to bear against him personally. And even _then_ he won more victories as he retreated back into France, including the incredible Six Days' Campaign, in which he won four victories in...six...days against the numerically superior Russian and Prussian forces in once of his most astonishing displays of generalship after 20 years on top. Even after 13 years of fighting Napoleon as Emperor, the Allies were willing to allow him to keep his throne up until months before his abdication in 1814 because they were so intimidated by him.
Zamoyski is spouting controversy agsinst the incontrivertible because he is a revisionist wannabe. Not easy to sell a history book to millennials. (You know. As in "Lincoln was gay"etc.)
His description of 18th century tactics is absolute bull. Tell Charles XII or Rehnskiöld that their tactics where mearly just standing in a line and shooting at the enemy and then just charge or retreat. Rehnskiöld would blow his top and would proceed to call him out for a duel for completely ignoring the Battle of Fraustadt.
@@FunkyTruester the Soviets flipped the script not due to tactical superiority or technological edges or German operational and tactical incompetence or mediocrity but innate strategic advantages.
he fought sixty battles and lost only seven. For any general, of any age, this was an extraordinary record. Yet his greatest and most lasting victories were those of his institutions, which put an end to the chaos of the French Revolution and cemented its guiding principle of equality before the law. Today the Napoleonic Code forms the basis of law in Europe and aspects of it have been adopted by forty countries spanning every continent. Napoleon’s bridges, reservoirs, canals and sewers remain in use throughout France. The French foreign ministry sits above the stone quays he built along the Seine, and the Cour des Comptes still checks public spending. Even if Napoleon hadn’t been one of the great military geniuses of history, he would still be a giant of the modern era. The leadership skills he employed to inspire his men have been adopted by other leaders over the centuries, yet never equaled except perhaps by his great devotee Winston Churchill. When asked who was the greatest captain of the age, the Duke of Wellington replied: ‘In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.’ Elsewhere, Churchill described Napoleon as ‘the greatest man of action born in Europe since Julius Caesar,’ a plaudit of which Napoleon would profoundly have approved. Napoleon’s strategy was to ensure that, although he could always count on British hostility, there would be no moment when all three continental powers of Russia, Austria and Prussia would be ranged against him at the same time. He thus needed to play each off against the others, and as much as possible against Britain too. He used Prussia’s desire for Hanover, Russia’s inability to fight on after Friedland, a marriage alliance with Austria, the differences between Russia and Austria over the Ottoman Empire and the fear of Polish resurgence that all three powers felt to avoid having to fight the four powers simultaneously.That he achieved this for a decade after the collapse of the Peace of Amiens, despite clearly being the European hegemon that each power most feared, was a tribute to his statesmanship.
@Edgardo Lara - Winston Churchill was never a great military leader. How can you compare him to Napoleon. There's no comparison. Every military adventure Churchill was involved with turned to fiasco (ie. Dardenelles) except of course when it came to slaughtering Africans, something he was very good at.
@@Skanzool To be fair, the OP didn't actually say Churchill was a great military leader, just that he had a near-unmatched ability to inspire people to fight for his cause. Which is fair enough.
Napoleon was a brilliant publicist who got to write his memoirs, every mistake was attributed to those who couldn't defend themselves.. Berthier was the genius who consistently crafted the battle for Nap. Napoleon was the publicist, who failed without Berthier's genius @ Waterloo. As Wellington said: they came on in the same old way, and we saw them off in the same old way.
Wellington said that Napoleon's presence on the field of battle made the difference of 40,000 men. He was definitely great in my eyes, at least from a military point of view.
His strategy failed because he pissed off too many countries so they dealt with him jointly. A good strategist would have seen that possibility coming. He didn't understand co-operation as he only knew how to bully so he didn't expect other countries to co-operate.
@@amadeusdebussy6736 No. It's not. Einstein was not in a competition of his own creation, he did not challenge everybody who disagreed with his proofs to a duel. Much as with Napoleon, the sane recognize that Einsteins work was collaborative. If you attributed to Einstein everything done by science during the timeframe he lived, and much before it, then you'd have a point.. and to be fair there is quite a lot of Einstein hero worship also, but for the most part he is at least only credited with things he actually did himself or took direct part in...unlike Napoleon.
it's nice when you come across debates where everyone involved is respectful to each other. i get sick of watching debates where the debaters are at each others throats.
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 Wait. It's Napoleon! Mate. I thought you died years ago? Hmm. You apparently have a lot of balls (ball idk) showing your face around here these days considering that we are all still paying the income tax which you created. We will forgive all your other misdemeanors but you will struggle to redeem yourself for income tax. Nice hat tho...
Andrew Roberts is continually attacked and stands his ground even though the so-called moderator is against him this is not a fair intellectual space, they all had it out for him and he stood his ground. Well done sir.
Zamoyski's argument that Napoleon should not be considered "the Great" because of the lack of stability in his political legacy could be used to challenge Alexander the Great's epithet. I found this interesting and I actually see Napoleon in a slightly more positive light, now.
Alexander's legacy endured until the Roman conquests, and his empire only fragmented upon his premature death. Napoleon's legacy fell apart in front of him, he watched France brought to ruin, and his family lose everything.
@@GuruJudge21 Yes but I would also argue that Alexander's success would'nt have been possible if not for his father. Napoleon rose from virtually nothing to become an emperor. Alexander was born with it all laid out before him.
@@user-ys5yv2nz6w I take your point, and I'm well aware how Philip II doesn't get the credit he deserves. However, Napoleon didn't come from nothing. He was a nobleman, and his father was Corsica's representative to the French crown. Napoleon attended military school on his father's dime. He was appointed to his command over the siege of Toulon through politics, and while Napoleon would win the siege and rise to general for it, the reason they were securing the city was to save France's navy, which Napoleon's nemesis Sidney Smith destroyed. After that, Napoleon was appointed to command in Italy, and he was basically handed a situation not dissimilar from the one Alexander inherited except Napoleon would have to perform a coup as well, which I'd argue does him more harm than not in terms of reputation. And while Napoleon's victories in Italy and Germany were certainly impressive and he did preside over some good reforms (which he is given too much credit for by Roberts, though not enough by Zamoyski), his defeats in Syria, Russia, and Leipzig tarnish them, and Waterloo along with the entire 100 days campaign should prove that he wasn't at Alexander's caliber. Napoleon was responsible for a lot of the bad choices that led to France's defeat, and while some of his reforms would remain, his legacy leads to an era of counter-reform in Europe unmatched since the Thirty Years War. Also, Alexander did inherit Macedonia but you are seriously ignorant of his history if you think what he accomplished was laid out for him. He did inherit an army from his father, but Alexander made more than enough innovations of his own, and was himself important to his father's conquest of Greece. And while his soldiers and officers were certainly an advantage, Alexander did more than just lead a good army, he was a genius strategist and tactician. His victories are incredible and without a defeat. The biggest mark against Alexander is that he died before his son was born, and still the Hellenization of Asia he brought about has lingering effects to this day. TL;DR Napoleon wasn't really a self-made man, and Alexander earned his reputation.
@@GuruJudge21 Yeah you're definitely right. Alexander definitely did achieve greatness by himself, not everything he did was pre destined by his fathers actions. I'm just a bit of a Napoleon fanboy lol.
Of course he is deserving of the distinction 'the Great'. But I wouldn't call him the great. For me the name Napoleon is as indicative of greatness as the word itself.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 For me, greatness in a historical context combines three primary attributes. First and foremost is historical significance or rather the magnitude of their impact on history. Second is overall competence. Thirdly, though to a lesser extent than one and two, is the contribution one makes to the overall progress and betterment of their world.
You sincerely need to go back and reevaluate the story, or reevaluate your life, because something is terribly wrong. When you defend Napoleon, not only are you defending a warmonger, a man responsible for the death of innocent millions. A man responsible for the killing of so many young men. A man responsible for the rape of so many women. A man responsible for the destruction of so many children's lives (because that's what war entails), but you are also defending one of histories greatest losers. A man who died in prison, isolated, defeated and full of regrets. A man who left his country conquered by the enemy. A man who destroyed his own army, the most powerful army in Europe through sheer blunders. A man who got ripped off by a new country in the Louisiana Purchase. So go back with a fresh pair of eyes, and realize you are defending a warmongering loser. Something no one should aspire to be.
lsatep you are judging an historical figure using modern day values and ideals. By your analysis many of the ‘great’ historical persons shouldn’t be defined as ‘great’. Napoleon is one of the most influential people to ever have been born. Are some of his actions unseemly by today’s standard? Absolutely. Was he still great? By almost any metric, absolutely.
I was beginning to despair of Zamoyski's and even Paxman's biased and anachronistic attitude, until this woman hit it on the head at 1:04. They treat Napoleon as if he had just died. He ruled in the early nineteenth century; democracy didn't exist anywhere in Europe or anywhere else for that matter; he was surrounded by absolute monarchies who wished his utter destruction; and their coalitions were paid for by Britain whose so-called 'constitutional monarchy' consisted of rule by the King, the Lords and their place men in the Commons. And in response to Zamoyski also, were the Kings of France and other monarchs of the ancien regime models of modern day moral rectitude and competence in administrative and military affairs? Something could be said for Frederick and Catherine on some fronts, but otherwise no I think is the answer to that. And then he goes on to reveal another anachronistic secret of his, having been commissioned to write a book: apparently Napoleon (as Hitler and indeed Putin were most notably) was elevated by men who thought they could control him. And thereby he contradicts his earlier assertion that Napoleon had just barged into the assembly and had been saved to a large extent by his brother, Lucien. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. The latter story has some element of truth to it in fact; the former just seems to suggest his view of history is particularly unreliable and that he's run out of ideas. And then of course he just goes on to trundle out the same tired old schoolboy standard about Napoleon's increasing megalomania. I for one won't be buying that book. What a waste of time and paper.
you complain about a refusal to treat the time as it's own time, and then insinuate that there was something unconstitutional about Britain's monarchy, 'so called' you say. The purpose, I might say, of that constitution was to preserve civil peace and improve upon what came before, which it did. The European world of that time saw a great many innovations, none of which, save perhaps the concept of an active continent-wide state of war, can be attributed to Napoleon.
By the standards of the time, Napoleon betrayed the revolution and waged wars across the Mediterranean for his own vanity. He was criticized at the time for this. Moreover, hardly anyone tries to portray his adversaries as great reformers and genuises.
No, it's not.. Grosnij ~ (en) grosse, meaning large, uncumbersome ~ grot, meaning great, as in Grote-Pier. Grey, at best., from Scandinavian 'grått', neuter, but the meaning is closer to determinism, severity. the negative connotation is a later addition, like always.
Napoleon was not great, he was THE GREATEST. The professor of energy as Geothe called him. France could not even protect her borders when he took over, 10 years later France ruled the entire continent. Yes he had his faults but nobody in history did so many miracles in such a short time...
Exactly. There's no need for Napoleon the Great, just like there is no need for Caesar the Great. There isn't even a need for Napoleon I. There is only 1 relevant Napoleon, and the mention of what Clausewitz calls the "god of war" is enough to render how great he was.
***** He is not an arsehole by no means, but he seems to have taken this whole debate with a pinch of salt -- as did the two protagnosists by the way. It was supposed to be all good fun, and it was.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not a very uplifting one. Anyway, I enjoyed the debate with (I am sure he was on the verge of) yawning Paxman rather than without. In any event any debate where the chairman has trouble suppressing the giggles has my support. Both debaters were good fun as well, and I wouldn't have expected that from the Andrew-guy, who I usually associate with being (another body part) right-wing prick. But he wasn't in this show, and I might even get hold of a copy of his book. I enjoyed this; it had me LOL
Spaz Modicus What a stupid question about the mamluks :)) Are you kidding? Firstly, I do not identify myself with them. Besides, about three hundred of the Mamluks (not all of them were of Georgian origin) arrived in France from Egypt with the French army and they formed a division in the Great Army and were faithful to the Emperor to the end. Secondly, what did Napoleon do to the Mamluks in Egypt? Just defeated them. Is winning a battle something shameful? :)))
Spaz Modicus Have I denied I am Georgian? As for Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia, they have always been Georgian territories. They are not victims of Georgia as you put it - you are deeply mistaken. The truth is that Georgia is the victim of Russia that supports the separatists just as Russia is doing it in Ukraine now! It is a good idea to learn about the matters deeper and better before jumping to the totally wrong conclusions. Not all the Mamluks were Georgian. It is just a fact. Believe me. The Georgians helped to organize the genocide of the Armenians? Who told you that nonsense? :))))
Spaz Modicus I am Georgian and I am proud to be Georgian! It is Georgia that is an independent country! The independence of Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia is a Russian illusion! "The Georgians invented a weird alphabet so they could keep things secret." - are you crazy? And if the Georgian Mamluks were low then Napoleon was right, defeating them :))) Yes, NAPOLEON THE GREAT! NAPOLEON LE GRAND!
Spaz Modicus All you have to do is to visit a psychiatrist. You are a madman. And your comments sound like letters from a madhouse! I will not answer them anymore. Go to a psychiatrist - you need some serious treatment.
Almost 40 minutes in and no mention of his absolute revolution in being the details master. This is where Napoleon shined, he was so great about the details, which so often the grandiose planners forget. (Of course with much aid from others-which goes to his concept of delegation)
"We are confronted with the enigma of a man of great intelligence, yet often startlingly obtuse in his judgment of men and events; a man intensely human, and even humane in his personal relationships, yet possessed of a daemon of ambition which puts him beyond the pale of humanity: in Aristotle's definition, 'either a beast or a god'." - Felix Markham, Napoleon
One of my favourite quotes is in The Anatomy of Glory - Napoleon and His Guard, A Study in Leadership. During his first exile, on the island of Elba, he caught some of the Guardsmen (including 120 Polish Lancers and 607 Grenadiers and Chasseurs) who'd been allowed to accompany him into exile stealing grapes from his vines. "Wait 'til they're ripe", he said. One of them later said "And you ask why we were devoted to him!" One reason why I think Andrew Roberts has a point about Napoleon the Great's sense of humour being one of his most appealing characteristics. Like when his horse tripped over a rope during a coastal inspection and threw him into the sea (He laughed it off, saying "It's nothing, it's only a bath"), or when he told Cambacérès, who'd just excused himself for arriving late at a meeting of the Council of State by saying that he'd been detained by a lady, "Next time you're "detained by a lady", say "Take your hat and stick and go Sir, the Council of State is waiting for me". Which is also one example of how religion, class, "race" and so on were less important in his eyes than tending to the public good.
I honestly started weeping when I read the letter which Napoleon wrote to Louis Antoinette Lannes, the wife of Marshal Jean Lannes, one of his best friends. It was so emotionally touching and human, very relatable and not words from the mind of a tyrant or despot. If only some historians would delve into the world of psychology, they would get a much, much better understanding of the history and characters in it which they are studying.
Georgnajam here’s an excerpt at least… “The Marshal has died this morning, of his wounds received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished General in my army, & a companion in arms for sixteen years, whom I considered my best friend.”
@@azanulbizar12 You fail to see the context yet again. Stalin murdered 40 million of his own citizens, by design. Name one situation where Napoleon did this to the citizens or soldiers he governed. Name one modern day leader who would've written that letter himself, and not have his adjutant or some speech writer do it for him. If you'd like to compare tyrants, we can do a dissection of Stalin and Hitler to find out who was the more compassionate one of them. Because I've studied history for 15 years now, after primary education, I don't say these things on a whim.
@@Daggz90 It's ridiculous to compare Napoleon to Stalin, beyond saying they were both incredibly influential leaders and so. Stalin's crimes are really hard to match, I agree with that. On the other hand, I saw recently one of these debaters say that Napoleon was a 'benevolent dictator', would you agree with that?
When I was plodding through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods at school, I never dreamed that 40 years later I'd be having a good laugh about it all. Could have listened to this for hours. Wonderful.
Adding "The Great" is strictly an Epithet, which is specifically an an adjective or phrase expressing a quality or attribute regarded a characteristic of a person. A cognomen is an extra personal name given to an ancient Roman citizen, functioning rather like a nickname and typically passed down from father to son.
@@ger du Napoleon is second only to him and perhaps Ghangis Khan
5 ปีที่แล้ว
Kay Em yeah he may have lost 6 coalitions later but he single handedly kicked the shit out of every single great power in Europe all facing him at once 6 times. And also to point out the arguments against giving him the epitaph ‘the great’ because he wasn’t elected, or because he eventually lost doesn’t make sense in that every single European power lined up against him was an absolute monarchy of unelected Kings aside from the Holy Roman Empire that was elected but, the argument is weak imo. Napoleon and the French Revolution was a complete contrast to the ruling power of the day and the status quo and he was forced from the start to have very aggressive policies because he wanted personal glory yes, but he also wanted to spread the ideas of the revolution and to humble those great powers around him. He absolutely deserves the title the great and honestly the fact we even debate this centuries after his death and his code is still used in most modern European republics today is a testament to that fact.
This debate seemed to me to focus too much on the morality of Napoleon's actions instead of the abilities required to undertake them. Greatness, when applied to eminent individuals, should be an attribute which exalts the capacity of a man to excel in his field, it should rarely have ethical connotations. Though many men ascend to greatness through achievements we would consider to be benevolent, we should also reflect upon the fact that these men more often than not held the same level of ability as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong. In short, the ethics of Napoleon's actions are broadly irrelevant. He should be considered great because he the ability he was required to possess to achieve what he did.
Why? Nobody would say Hitler 'the great' despite the political power he wielded and the ability he showed to quickly transform a country to embody his principals. So ethics matter, and more to the point, they should matter.
@@xn85d2 They should, but as long as we see (war) history in a kind of Plutarchian way these discussions are always gonna be muddled. I think N. achievements are really impressive, but you have to acknowledge he was seriously flawed if you look at his inability to share power.
Certainly Hitler was a great orator, and I'm sure will have had other skills. Does that make him great? Absolutely not. Because his legacy was not that of progress, as is endemic to great characters, but one of unimaginable human suffering. Greatness weighed in blood of innocents is not greatness; it's monstrosity
@@arkhammemery4712 that's a fair point, but napoleon started a meat grinder that for the times was insane and people still sleeping on this. "But he fought defensive wars" my ass, napoleon knew perfectly what he was doing. Even Sardinia-piedmont started "defensive" wars against the Hapsburg by provoking the opponent to attack and then counter attacking with speed.
Enough to make Allied leaders avoid him and focus on his marshals when they invaded France with immense advantages (aside from a few, most of whom were shit without his direct control). He still gave them a drubbing every time he caught up with them.
If anyone else had done half of what Napoleon achieved during his military and administrative career there would be no debate. The only reason we're disagreeing is because he lost and his enemies want to tarnish his career posthumously.
It's not so much they want to tarnish his career as they wish to hide how duplicitous, scheming, and pathetic all of the great powers were during these wars. They wish to hide the fact that THEY at least as much as Napoleon, if not less so threw away millions of lives for their own aggrandizement.
I guess his point is that Napoleon lost most important battles. Just like Tyson, he also was amazing fighter but lost all those fights that really mattered after which his career was also done.
@@halorecon95 Agreed, but all (?) these battles happened when Napoleon had strategic upper hand. But when he was in defence, when things trembled and mattered most, he failed. No concept of how to ensure peace killed him at the end. Great commander he was indeed. But he was not an emperor.
@@rlbk3649 I would recommend you look a bit deeper into the battles. While you could make that arguement for Jena and maybe Friedland, Austerlitz was just such a massive victory against incredible odds that you have to give him his proper due. There's also the fact that Napoleon wasn't just a great general, but also a great administrator.
Zamoyski calls Napoleon "lying through his teeth" and did I catch correctly he said most of his victories and achievements were someone else doing ? Wow? This guy is really desperate to discredit the man. I dont blame him, its hard hating someone so much you really need to dig deep to find anything against valid against him. I mean, how can any historian say he doesnt understand how Napoleon lost at Waterloo. I pity him, I really do.
@@rhysnichols8608 that was just a bit of humour to start us off. The thrust of his argument is that Napoleon didn't achieve anywhere near as much as he could have.
“The Great” is unnecessary for such a man. The truly greatest only need their name. That is enough to evoke the full-fledged majesty of the individual. Caesar. Hannibal. Napoleon.
Napoleon brought in the metric system,a French central bank,good public works,streamlined the legal system and could dictate to 3 or 4 people at a time.He was a very bright intellect who knew men and knew how to inspire them,he was personally brave ( see Bridge at Arcoli) hated seeing men suffering though he was a military man himself but would not shy from a fight.He is blamed for what went on in France but people are quick to forget that the revolution had the guillotine and the terror and he ended the chaos.He emancipated the Catholic Church from what had happened to it in the revolution and did the same for the jews giving them all rights as citizens.He could not but fight when it came to the nations about him because they had all declared war on revolutionary France ,he was constantly harassed by the Kings of Europe who saw the threat the ideals of the revolution presented to them by the killing of the Bourbon king and Napoleon as Emperor had to be eradicated
Britain had a revolution too, in fact more than one. The one by Cromwell led to tyranny because Cromwell was a Puritan and people got fed up with the misery of Puritanism. In the end, England fixed its own problem, by putting a king back in place. English kings don't get carte blanche to do what they want. Parliament rules. In effect we have a republic with the minor handicap of a constitutional monarch whose duties are archaic leftovers. Napoleon got 'eradicated' for stomping all over Europe. You may think of Napoleon as a threat to the idea of monarchies running countries, but effectively he WAS a monarch. His line replaced that of the Bourbon kings. It was just a regime change. It wasn't like he declared himself to be a prime minister presiding over a cabinet with majority decision-making. In that sense, he was not a threat to the idea of hereditary leaders, since he had every intention of being one. But he went too far.
What Andrew left out is the men who Napoleon executed in Jaffa had also tortured and castrated several French emissaries and stuck their heads on pikes on the city walls. It still doesn't justify what Napoleon did, but makes his actions more understandable in the context of the generally benevolent man that he was.
@@smiley4995 By medieval standards, sure. But by the standards of 1800, after centuries during which the 'rules of war' had slowly been developed (however strange that phrase may seem), the massacre was seen as barbaric.
Those ‘rules of war’ you refer to applied exclusively to the European theatre, though Napoléon initially brought them with him to Egypt. When he learned the hard way the Mameluks & Ottomans were complete savages by European standards, he eventually responded in kind. I can’t say it’s the big deal it’s made out to be. No one seems to mind that the Ottomans & Mameluks employed similar or worse ruthlessness.
The greatest problem of Europe in the 19th century were the "prison empires" (Aus, Prus, Rus, Ottom) who held half of the continent's nations under occupation. The only one to actively engage all of them and free some of those nations was Napoleon. For that he gets my eternal gratitude and regret he did not emerge victorious. Europe would'v been spared the first world war and thus also the second, whilst half of it would receive freedom a century earlier.
Sir George Severn Well that depends. There were definite progressive moves in the 18th century with the 'enlightened absolutists' (Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great, Joseph II), but of course they were still absolutists. In general there was not the liberty of expression allowed in Great Britain or France after the revolution.
Sir George Severn I don't understand what you mean by 'look at history through today's lenses'. And if you judge the French Revolution to be a catastrophe that could be said to be looking at history through your own personal present-day lens.
As a patriotic Englishman, I can’t help but admire Napoleon for his achievements and drive. Albeit I do love Wellington and proud of the fact we won Waterloo.
@@gregvictoire1309 Why do you use the excuse that it was the Prussians who won the battle? Wellington had more than 20,000 more men and a lot of his troops were much more experienced. He was also a much better general than Blucher who lost a lot of battles. Napoleon already made a lot of mistakes in the battle. We would have won without the Prussians. The French morale was already low and they had been fighting all day
@@JJaqn05 Why such revisionism? Wellington a much better general than Blucher? Based on what? Only because he is English? True that Blucher lost a lot of battles, but he lost them against Napoleon himself (Ligny, Brienne, Jena) or against the best French Marshals like Murat (Lubeck, Prenzlau). That's a bit different that Wellington who only distinguished himself in the Peninsula War, winning battles against the French who were often outnumbered. The best French forces fighting where it mattered the most, against the Prussians and Russians. Blucher was part of the Allied forces that defeated Napoleon at the battle of Leipzig, which is widely considered as the most decisive win over Napoleon, because it's when he really lost the war. Blucher and Kutuzov are historically considered as the two most important generals for the final victory over Napoleon. Not Wellington (except for the British of course), because the war was not lost in Spain. As for the battle of Waterloo, you can distort history as much as you want but the facts are what they are. Wellington's army (of which 2/3 were foreigners btw) was losing the battle at 1vs1 against Napoleon. They were on the defensive and about to withdraw when the Prussians arrived, enabling the Allies to outnumber the French at almost 2vs1. The thing is that Wellington knew he couldn't defeat Napoleon alone with the same number of troops on both sides. His purpose was to hold the ground until the Prussians come to turn the tide of the battle with 50,000 additional soldiers. As Wellington said himself, Waterloo was the 'nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life". Wellington would have never fought Waterloo if he didn't know that the Prussians would come. I mean, it is widely known among historians that without Blucher, Wellington would have lost and withdrawn. So the "We would have won without the Prussians" is nothing more that pure revisionism based on nationalistic feelings and fantasy. But that's a bit too common among nationalistic people who always need to over exaggerate the role of their countrymen, and downplay that of others, even if history says otherwise. Your comment is the best example of that. It's wrong in every aspect. It's just what you want to believe. The best part of your comment must be your justification for saying that Wellington would have won, because "the French morale was already low". That doesn't mean anything, it's based on nothing. All the historical facts showed otherwise, and that's the only thing you found to believe that Wellington "would have won without the Prussians". Kinda funny to be honest.
I think Napoleon closely parallels Alexander the Great. Both were of different ethnicities than their nationalities (i.e. Macedonian/Greek and Italian/French). Both were clear military geniuses. Both ruled over continents by their 30s. Both spread the arts and the sciences. Both attempted to unify their empires and advanced their cultures (e.g. certain Hellenistic ideals, certain French revolutionary ideals). Both were in certain respects (not all respects) progressive for their time period. Both were in a sense benevolent dictators. And so on. If Alexander the Great is a fitting moniker, then I think the same moniker should suit Napoleon as well.
Many of Napoleon victories, that are still relevant today was in social reform, the man was not only winning battles he was changing society with the same enthusiasm. Not many people in history did both with his success rate.
The majority in the audience started out thinking Napoleon was worthy of being called great and that remained true to the end. I consider this an important lesson in the psychology behind elections of any kind: It's easier to swing people "against" something rather than "for" it. If swinging itself and not the overall end percentage is an indicator the "against" vote is always going to win.
Just Western Europe?! He's one of the greatest men in history. In terms of military conquest, he's up there with the likes of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
I've listened to this debate a couple times now, since it came out in 2014. The first time I listened to this, I was deep into the Napoleonic lore, and in many ways an admirer of Napoleon. However, I still think the story of Napoleon is a very interesting story, but I am a bit older now and see things in a different light. I'm reluctant to call any historical figure "the Great", as history is complex, and there is always many points of view to every story. I think the best way to read history is by looking into the stories themselfs and appreceating the great stories and tradegies that has happened to us as a collective, and not by loyally attacking or defending a certain person from history.
No man is perfect, but we are all judged by our accomplishments in life. Few have accomplished so much, in such short time span, with all the offs against them, as Napoleon has. Even if he merely used the revolutionary ideas to promote his own ambition, the results were a better quality of life for the common folk in the areas he had authority over. He tried to liberate Poland from Prussia, Russia and Austria. He dismantled a thousand year old Empire which had grown stale and without purpose, consumed by gluttony and greed; just as the other Bourbon Monarchies which were despised by the hard working commoners all across Europe. He was our last chance at a saviour, someone to free Europe from the grasp of Bankers and Monarchs whom had no good intent for the lesser folk they governed. Napoleon fought an economic war against the Rotschilds but when the battle of Waterloo was lost, Nicolas Rotschild sold his UK bonds cheap as if the UK had lost and then secretly bought them back at a fraction of their actual worth. An economic coup which yielded Rotschilds more than half of UK financial worth. Napoleon's history goes a lot deeper than the campaigns, intrigues and politics. He truly was one of the Great, one just has to read more, to understand it.
I agree. And this is why Napoleon endlessly fascinates us compared to other characters from that era like Alexander I or Wellington. He was ferociously complex, and after 200 years it is still impossible to nail down his character. In many ways he is like a human Rorsharch Test: everyone sees in him what they want to see.
@@squamish4244 In Napoleon I see both our highest potential and the capacity for the best of us to be corrupted. I still see him as a net good, but I wished, with a mind like his, he'd done better.
@@MrMuel1205 That's a good way of putting it. Napoleon's greatest failing - which was also, ironically, one of his greatest strengths - is that he had no sense of limits. He didn't know when to stop. And it did eventually become all about him. What Adam is leaving out, however, is that the reason that Napoleon had to keep defeating coalition after coalition, and therefore the reason his ego became bigger and bigger, is because the British kept refusing to let him be and kept funding his opponents to form new coalitions against him. Although he at least acknowledges how ridiculous Pitt's government was, paying many people to assassinate him. The British could have let Napoleon be when they signed the Peace of Amiens in 1802, but violated that agreement eventually. They could have let him be at any point before 1812 and Napoleon would have relinquished the Continental System that is the reason he invaded Russia. But they just kept fighting him. And then they formed the national myth that they were the ones who were most responsible for beating him, and elevated Wellington to a status he didn't deserve as the 'hero' of the Napoleonic Wars. Wellington was a highly competent general, but he was no Napoleon and I find attempted comparisons between the two absurd.
Brits arguing over how their second greatest threat to its existence as a nation in its history should be remembered by the world for all time? Interesting. As an American it may be claimed that I am more influenced by British Imperialism than the continental wars of Napoleon in Europe. That being said, without British Imperialism, the colonies would never rise to become the nation I love to be a citizen of, so all in all, I have no personal quarrel with either power of that age. That being said, I feel having this discussion on the forum presented is subject to extraordinary bias as he was Britain's greatest enemy after all,and to blame the entire conflict on him is misguided. In fact, it could be argued that without the antagonism of Great Britain the Napoleonic wars would not be so many or result in such attrition. Undoubtedly, without Britain, France would eventually absorb Austria, Switzerland and Prussia and perhaps bite in to Poland and Spain. To be fair, the other European powers vied for power against one another and would like to cuddle up the biggest kid on the block, to give France an excuse to annex more territory, and that's the way of Empire. Every Imperial power grew through strength and dividing its potential enemies, including Britain, so the hypocrisy is palpable. However, France could never absorb so much land as Germany did in WWII because its military would be much more encumbered by securing the territory. France would simply become on par with or perhaps slightly superior to British power in Europe. It is only natural that Britain opposed Imperial France, and just as natural that allies gathered against it, and fortunate that this happened, but to blame Napoleon and France for doing just what the other powers in Europe did to expand their power and succeeding seems wrong. Sure, he abused the revolution and proclaimed himself Emperor, but only after the terror and the continual weakening of France through political infighting and weak governments. He simply no longer believed in liberty and Republican governance. During his reign he expanded France's power of influence, implemented central banking, education reforms, the civil code which is the modern basis of French law, maintained a stable government for the first and last time in ages, and most of these gains were largely intact even after his eventual defeat. He took on the greatest powers in Europe again and again and perhaps simply succeeded too much to be acceptable by our modern sentiments. He was the greatest military tactician of his era, a bright and capable civic ruler, and only after over 15 years of fighting in Europe did he make crucial errors in judgement that led to his demise. And so, he deserves the title of "The Great" like his forebearers.
Edo Gelbard good argument. I haven't read any of Andrew Roberts books on Napoleon but I am in possession of Napoleon and Wellington which I will read soon. I have however read a great book called 'Napoleon : A biography' by Frank McLynn which I am reading for the second time and find a brilliant and balanced non biased book that rightly put responsibility on British intransigence when it needs to be put on them and responsibility on the Emperor when it needs to be.
@@johnholmes912 ruled* past tense. The colonies got you beat now. At least no one is questioning whether Nelson should be called "The Great". Winning a few battles and dying doesn't win you much pomp, consequential as they may be.
@@edogelbard1901 the only colony that beat the British Empire was the Americans with French and Spanish support. All were gradually released and made member of the Commonwealth.
@@johnholmes912 Two words: Nelson, Trafalgar. What Napoleon was on land, Nelson was on sea. Britain wasn't short on incapable commanders, but like other British sea legends, he was far and above his peers. Even with a Nelson, if Trafalgar wouldn't happen, it wouldn't discourage Naploeon from investing resources into another navy, and they could eventually compete on the waves considering the industrial capacity of the continental system he forged. In short, he WAS a real threat, but trafalgar ended it.
Napoleon the Great is just right regardless of the blunders and setbacks. "Great" doesn't mean perfect not even virtuous. It is about the magnitude of impact in history and Napoleon was a force in history with only few left to compare with.
Well he was spreading meritocracy & equality before the law - his enemies were blue bloods fighting to keep serfs in their fields. So who lacks virtue in the Napoleonic Wars?
How can a man who usurped the crown and spent years invading and fighting other countries, costing 100s of 1000s of lives . Just to lose the war . Then start another war costing 1000s of lives Just to lose the war a 2nd time. How can a man like that Be called great ? He was a loser . Julius Caesar was great. Constantine 1st was great . King Alfred of England was great . Wellington was great . Admiral Nelson was great. Duke of Marlborough was great . Eisenhower was great . Because they were winners . Napoleon was a loser with short man syndrome.. :)
Twice i have tried to listen to this debate, and twice i haven't been able to continue past Adam Zamoyskies part, where he talks about the british bringing rifles to the war, the russians bringing some kind of aiming device for artillery, and Napoleon doing nothing but the same old thing and pouring in waves of troops. It is ludicrous; Napoleon was a tactical innovator, The Grande Arme developed trough the entire period, bus he was a MASTER strategist, and no nations could operate on army-level like the french. The marshalls of France won many army sized battles without Napoleon, and that is testament to the army he created. Adam Zamoyskie doesnt know what he is talking about in regards to the martial, and it would have suited him to stay on the personal and political points.
@@Swift-mr5zi No he did not; only if you count wounded, missing, stragglers, desserters and captured, most of which where allies. In addition; ask the russians, whether wars are lost by loosing men. Russia was a catastrophe, so was Spain. Both conflicts resulted in the major destruction and setback of Russia and Spain. One can ask; can a brilliant general and statesman overcome uncompromising total war? But of course it was his two big mistakes. Napoleon was defeated in Russia, not at Leipzig or Waterloo. In essence, what happened to Napoleon, happened to every other bright star in european history; they became to great. Before Russia and Spain, Napoleon crushed every other army he fought for 15 years and brought an impoverished and fragmented France into a position of unity and preeminence, created a unified law code still in use, created the modern administrative divisions of France and brough social reforms to much of Europe. In my opinion he is as great as Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and Frederik.
A man who chooses the Mona Lisa for his bedroom and ends the Inquisition in Spain is “ Great”. Andrew Roberts is also great. His Churchill book was stupendous and his bearing throughout this unfair, “moderated” debate with his picayune opponent was impeccable.
Zomoyski makes me remember that great speech given By TR “ It is not the critic who counts, the one who points out how the great man stumbles” at the end of the century we’ll still be discussing Napoleon the same cannot he said for Zomoyski because he is merely a critic , a spectator - humorous as he may be
No kidding. I wondered about that too. The undecideds must’ve been ignorant going in and changed their minds on the basis of Z’s “woke” style....unless Paxman messed with the count.
@@rhysnichols8608 The fact that you think a small joke to kick things off represents any significant part of Adam's argument shows how small-minded you are being.
zamoyski had a lot of good points but in my opinion he failed to sell us on the point that Napolean shouldn't be coined Napoleon The Great. He had flaws as a human being, yes, we all do but he create greatness out of nothing, coming from a semi-noble yet poor family. He rose to power through hard work, eye for detail, talent, corauge, wit, and did a lot of both bad but mostly good things with his power. And therefore there is no reason as to why he should not be called Napoleon the Great because other figures with the title "The Great" have done things much worse than he, for example Alexander the Great.
***** His good points were mostly insulting Napoleon based on height, inability to flirt, and other such traits that have little to nothing to do with being a great ruler.
***** Especially when you account for the fact that "the Great" is quite different from "the Good". Terrible things can be "great" as their impact is enormous. You can in many ways say the last 200+ years of history can be drawn right to Napoleons doorstep.
Robert Marchione agreed they should have just defined terms at the beginning because they both clearly had 2 different interpretations of what it means to be great.
This is such a treasure. I've read Adam Zamoiski book and now I have to read Andrew's book. This is actually interesting, 'cause Adam defending Napolean was not that geat goes with the feeling I had from reading his book.
Indirectly thanks to Napoleon most latin american countries declared independence from Spain, and particularly my country Chile created its own Civil Code based on the napoleonic one.
Zamoyski missed the opportunity to point out that on two occasions, when the going got too tough, Napoleon completely abandoned his armies..... just left!!! Once in Egypt and again in Russia. Not the character trait of greatness. The debate here is silly really. You could go all day and make a strong argument for both sides, and no side will ever "win". A better question would have been "Was Napoleon good for France?". He was an amazing military leader, that is undeniable, but his political policies and ambitions were unsustainable. The only reason he was able to gain the power he did is because there was a power vacuum in France at the time. Napoleon said it himself: "I found the crown of France in the gutter and I picked it up." Choices to attack Spain and Russia were terrible, driven by ego and a hunger for power. Napoleon's influences could have been much more effective if tempered by an equally strong political figure. As it was, he was doomed to fail...as he did.
Wrong. He didn't make the point because it's an empty sack Napoleon pre-approved plans to have his men repatriated by the Britisn Royal Navy before he left. In exchange they would surrender all their treasures to the British, including the Rosetta Stone. The British broke this treaty after he left and it had to be renegotiated. In the end his men were repatriated
Napoleon was a Head of State. Even Adam says in his book 1812: Napoleons Fatal March on Moscow Napoleon could not afford to stay away from Paris for that long. His army was retreating back to Vilnius. Murat commanded the army well enough that Napoleon was not needed. He needed to return to Paris before a coupe could occur in his absence
Kind of a weird appeal to emotion to make. In both instances, staying would be dangerous and futile. There was political unrest to quell on the home front, and fresh troops to raise, train, and organise to continue the fight elsewhere, meanwhile other competent leaders could take over. Had he stayed, people would (rightly) criticise him for refusing to accept reality in dire circumstances (something he is already rightly criticised for in other circumstances ei; the end of his 1814 French Campaign). Do you genuinly think staying would have benefitted his men or country in either case, and how so? I'm not asking to be condescending, I just honestly want to know your thought process there (I know this is two years after your comment so don't feel like you need to respond, I understand if you have better things to do with your time). As for your comment about anyone with the title of "Great" being unfitting for one who's fled the field of battle, I will simply point to the anecdote of Frederick the Great who fled the Battle of Mollwitz during the War of the Austrian Succession, a battle that his army still won. The same man who holds the title of Great despite losing nearly half his battles compared to Napoleons near 90% win ratio. His comment about having picked his crown out of the gutter is supposed to highlight the fact that while anyone perhaps could have picked it up so to speak, it was he who not only did so, but he who managed to defend it from the whole of europe for 15 years. While his grandiose ambitions were certainly unsustainable, considering most aspects of his consitutional, military, banking/tax, religious, and educational reforms are still in place 200 years later, if that isn't sustainable, I don't really know what is. Not like you can't critcise him, Russia to some degree is hard to justify and Spain especially is fairly indefensible on his part. But in the context of this debate, any arguments that stem from morality and/or emotion don't really hold much weight, and blemishes on his career like Spain and Russia aren't enough to sway my opinion on his significance in history. Anyways, cheers.
Andrew Roberts won that by far! He was had an impartial unprofessional moderator and the other speaker both arguing with him at once! Not fair to have two against one at all.
Napoleon did have a war aim when he went into Russia. His aim was to force the Tsar to get back on board with the programme agreed at Tilsit in 1807 and particularly, the embargo against trade with Britain. Where it went wrong was the he foresaw a swift defeat of the Russian forces not too far from the border, and didn't allow for the Russians' option of trading space for time, to which he failed to find an adequate response, but this doesn't mean he initially went in without any aim, as Adam Zamoyski claims - and indeed his own book about 1812 makes clear..
Napoleon the Great? A debate with Andrew Roberts, Adam Zamoyski and Jeremy Paxman 0940am 5.12.23 his uselessness with women being the secret to his success...
For a truly great and poetic denounciation of Boney I recomend that of Chateaubriand; "The bloody drama of Europe is concluded, and the great tragedian, who for twenty years has made the earth his theatre, and set the world in tears, has left the stage forever! He lifted the curtain with his sword, and filled the scenes with slaughter ... His part was invented by himself, and was terribly unique. Never was there so ambitious, so restless, a spirit: never so daring, so fortunate, a soldier. His aim was universal dominion, and he gazed at it steadfastly with the eye of an eagle and the appetite of a vulture. Civilised nations were the victims of his arts, and savages could not withstand his warfare. Sceptres crumbled in his grasp, and liberty withered in his presence. The Almighty appeared to have entrusted to him the destinies of the globe, and he used them to destroy. He proved himself the Attila of the West ... He made war before he declared it; and peace with him was a signal for hostilities. His friends were the first he assailed, and his allies he selected to plunder ... This bloodstained soldier adorned his throne with the trophies of art, and made Paris the seat of taste as well as power ... The weight of the chains which he imposed on France was forgotten in their splendor Great he unquestionably was, great in the resources of a misguided mind, great in the conception and execution of evil, great in mischief, like the pestilence; great in desolation, like the whirlwind."
rockheimr people aren't biased unless they have a personnal interest in it, chateaubriand was an ancien regime aristocrat who lived through the revolution, so to ask of him to describe the events and take his word without thought is careless.
@@jrrtt25 Especially since those sheep had just murder the last guy who was king along with his entire family minus a daughter. Napoleon knew the sheep could be dangerous.
Sound like an internet meme to me.....in fact, I've seen it memed several times attributed to different people. I'm pretty sure that quote is actually by Mr. Ed G. Lord
Andrew Roberts could have mentioned that it was only as a result of Napoleon's success in destabilizing the Spanish government that most, if not all, Spanish colonies in the Americas could gain their independence in the 1800's. This is certainly the one thing for which I can thank Mr. Bonaparte.
Yes, Napoleon entered Spain as an ally and betrayed his most powerful ally causing 600.000 deaths and his own downfall. Brilliant, indeed. (On the other hand the Spanish Empire in America went from prosperous Viceroyalties -read Alexander von Humboldt- to poor and corrupt Republics, with Indians being massacred in Argentina and Chile, and dependent on London banks).
@Rick R Thank you! I’m frankly tired of Indian nationalist fanatics and other pseudo intellectuals harping on about Churchill and the Bengal Famine (I am Indian btw). People like this fellow Card & Code making asinine uninformed comments only manifest their shabby research and intellectual laziness.
Oh, yeah. I remember that my father (b.1912) told me that Napoleon and his men carried wine because it kept better than water and that specifically Napoleon drank Madeira. My father drank it honor of him.
They were really arguing past each other for a lot of this. Zemoyski kept making arguments about Napoleon's character and morals, which aren't in my opinion relevant. Alexander of Macedon got drunk and murdered one of his friends and most loyal generals one evening. He was a deeply disturbed and unwell man, and yet no one disputes his title of "The Great". Why then should Napoleon's lesser personal moral failings disqualify him?
I can't believe anyone was swayed by Zamoyski's arguments. Napoleon wasn't great because he couldn't get laid? Is that really an actual argument? He wasn't super funny and engaging all the time? He wasn't a genius because, what, all his opponents were "dumb"? This kind of infantile logic was the most ridiculous rambling rant I ever heard from someone who's considered an "intellectual", good grief!
What am I looking at here ? I dont understand what Im seeing. (1) People are expressing different points of view and no-one is getting offended! (2) People are joking with other people who dont share their point of view (3) Where are the women at? How can anything happen without women being involved!! (4) Ditto the absence of transgender and gender fluid participants. (5) No crying. Can someone please explain whats going on here ???
david cheng That doesn't answer my question. What I was wondering was, you seem to assume "the unification of the european" is something positive, but I wonder what you think the positive is?
just a presumption that the unification of the european may offer a chance to end the long-term unilateral world which leaves marginal peoples with little choice
david cheng I see what you mean. It's true there are various regionalist agendas such as Catalonia who seek a greater autonomy for their areas as part of an EU that removes centralism from member countries. But Britain has reasons for resisting EU unification, and that regionalism is resisted by other national authorities besides Britain, such as Spain with Catalonia. Also what's this got to do with Napoleon?
This was really an abysmal show by Jeremy Paxman, who turned what could have been a lively debate into a 2v1 assault. A masterclass in how a moderator should NOT conduct himself.
![Would We Be Better Off Without Religion? - Christopher Hitchens [2007] ✝️ | Intelligence Squared](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DIR7_X-ahy4/mqdefault.jpg)
Well if he wasn't "Great", there won't be a 1.5 hr debate on this point, about 200 years after his death, and that too in a country which was France's arch nemesis.
Exactly.
You could have a debate on any historical leader, of any level prominence, being called great. This debate was a result of the title of Robert's title.
I know this is an extreme example, but you could have a debate on Hitler or Stalin being great, if atrocities do prohibit this distinction. Likewise, figures like Richard the Lionheart, or Frederick II Staufer or Charles V, who accomplished a lot, are remembered, but not called 'great'.
that doesnt make him great, just an important historic character
Leandro
Hahahah. Napoleon is truly a Nietzsche’s ubermensch
Well said!
He doesn't need to be called great he has a whole era named after him
Lol, well said
well said, the Napoleonic era..
Well thats right. I actually knew about Wellington by reading a biography on napoleon.
The Napoleonic era only existed in France , just as the Victorian era only existed in Britain.
Victorian era only existed in ENGLAND.
Zamoyski claims Napoleon wasn't a great military leader because he used bold and innovative tactics against enemies who didn't. I'm curious what Zamoyski thinks is great leadership if that doesn't apply.
Yes, when people criticize Napoleon's military abilities on the basis that "His enemies eventually adopted his reforms and tactics", I think, so what? That's part and parcel of what a brilliant general is. And even *then* he kept winning battles! He lost at Leipzig because the Allies adopted a strategy of defeating his marshals until they could bring overwhelming force to bear against him personally.
And even _then_ he won more victories as he retreated back into France, including the incredible Six Days' Campaign, in which he won four victories in...six...days against the numerically superior Russian and Prussian forces in once of his most astonishing displays of generalship after 20 years on top.
Even after 13 years of fighting Napoleon as Emperor, the Allies were willing to allow him to keep his throne up until months before his abdication in 1814 because they were so intimidated by him.
Zamoyski is spouting controversy agsinst the incontrivertible because he is a revisionist wannabe. Not easy to sell a history book to millennials. (You know. As in "Lincoln was gay"etc.)
His description of 18th century tactics is absolute bull. Tell Charles XII or Rehnskiöld that their tactics where mearly just standing in a line and shooting at the enemy and then just charge or retreat. Rehnskiöld would blow his top and would proceed to call him out for a duel for completely ignoring the Battle of Fraustadt.
@@FunkyTruester the Soviets flipped the script not due to tactical superiority or technological edges or German operational and tactical incompetence or mediocrity but innate strategic advantages.
@是邪恶的习近平 true.
guy writes 4 books about the same man
guy: he's not that important
Tsundere historian
@christiaan taart Whoosh
@christiaan taart "plenty of revisionist historians have made a significant contribution to history" HAAAAAAAAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHHHUAHHHAHAUHUHAHAHH
ele não está dizendo q ele ñ foi importante, ele está apenas dizendo que ele não é digno da admiração q a palavra grande/great sugere.
@@jairaugusto9289 tive que ler 100 comentarios e fiquei feliz que o primeiro que entendeu o titulo que deveria ser obvio esta em portugues :D
he fought sixty battles and lost only seven. For any general, of any age, this was an extraordinary record. Yet his greatest and most lasting victories were those of his institutions, which put an end to the chaos of the French Revolution and cemented its guiding principle of equality before the law. Today the Napoleonic Code forms the basis of law in Europe and aspects of it have been adopted by forty countries spanning every continent. Napoleon’s bridges, reservoirs, canals and sewers remain in use throughout France. The French foreign ministry sits above the stone quays he built along the Seine, and the Cour des Comptes still checks public spending.
Even if Napoleon hadn’t been one of the great military geniuses of history, he would still be a giant of the modern era. The leadership skills he employed to inspire his men have been adopted by other leaders over the centuries, yet never equaled except perhaps by his great devotee Winston Churchill.
When asked who was the greatest captain of the age, the Duke of Wellington replied: ‘In this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.’
Elsewhere, Churchill described Napoleon as ‘the greatest man of action born in Europe since Julius Caesar,’ a plaudit of which Napoleon would profoundly have approved.
Napoleon’s strategy was to ensure that, although he could always count on British hostility, there would be no moment when all three continental powers of Russia, Austria and Prussia would be ranged against him at the same time. He thus needed to play each off against the others, and as much as possible against Britain too. He used Prussia’s desire for Hanover, Russia’s inability to fight on after Friedland, a marriage alliance with Austria, the differences between Russia and Austria over the Ottoman Empire and the fear of Polish resurgence that all three powers felt to avoid having to fight the four powers simultaneously.That he achieved this for a decade after the collapse of the Peace of Amiens, despite clearly being the European hegemon that each power most feared, was a tribute to his statesmanship.
Thank you, English is not my 1st language so that's help :)
fix the quote it is “in this age, in past ages, in any age, Napoleon.”
@Edgardo Lara - Winston Churchill was never a great military leader. How can you compare him to Napoleon. There's no comparison. Every military adventure Churchill was involved with turned to fiasco (ie. Dardenelles) except of course when it came to slaughtering Africans, something he was very good at.
@@Skanzool To be fair, the OP didn't actually say Churchill was a great military leader, just that he had a near-unmatched ability to inspire people to fight for his cause. Which is fair enough.
Napoleon was a brilliant publicist who got to write his memoirs, every mistake was attributed to those who couldn't defend themselves.. Berthier was the genius who consistently crafted the battle for Nap. Napoleon was the publicist, who failed without Berthier's genius @ Waterloo. As Wellington said: they came on in the same old way, and we saw them off in the same old way.
Wellington said that Napoleon's presence on the field of battle made the difference of 40,000 men. He was definitely great in my eyes, at least from a military point of view.
Crap national leader; phenomenal strategist
You need to substitute 'egotist' for 'strategist'...his strategy failed ...he lost.
ban jomi hm... apart from waterloo, he faced not many defeats, yet many victories. he fought waterloo like he wanted to lose.
His strategy failed because he pissed off too many countries so they dealt with him jointly. A good strategist would have seen that possibility coming. He didn't understand co-operation as he only knew how to bully so he didn't expect other countries to co-operate.
ban jomi i meant military strategist, not diplomatic strategist. i know that they are linked, but i like to separate them.
And furthermore, to assert that Napoleon's military victories were just a result of his opponents' incompetence is patently absurd.
+Brian 1815 I agree to some extent, but in history the great battles are very often decided by a great mistake.
It's ridiculous. It's like saying that "Einstein wasn't really that smart, it's just that everyone else was dumber than him."
@@amadeusdebussy6736 No. It's not. Einstein was not in a competition of his own creation, he did not challenge everybody who disagreed with his proofs to a duel. Much as with Napoleon, the sane recognize that Einsteins work was collaborative. If you attributed to Einstein everything done by science during the timeframe he lived, and much before it, then you'd have a point.. and to be fair there is quite a lot of Einstein hero worship also, but for the most part he is at least only credited with things he actually did himself or took direct part in...unlike Napoleon.
@@amadeusdebussy6736 Compared to Artificial Intelligence, Einstein was stupid.
@@PresidentialWinner No, he wasn't.
it's nice when you come across debates where everyone involved is respectful to each other. i get sick of watching debates where the debaters are at each others throats.
A debate without boundaries and respect is a hasty argument.
@Jasonsenipor
You just had to smear the Leftists didn't you?
Ironic given your accusation.
It only happens when people don't really care. No more complex than that... Both sides are the same..
@@markboggs746
"The flags may didfer but the methods are the same"
-Victor Reznov
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 Wait. It's Napoleon! Mate. I thought you died years ago? Hmm. You apparently have a lot of balls (ball idk) showing your face around here these days considering that we are all still paying the income tax which you created. We will forgive all your other misdemeanors but you will struggle to redeem yourself for income tax. Nice hat tho...
“He did win a few battles” lost the whole debate on the spot right there haha
In English such a use of language is not irregular, its usually meant to be implicitly humorous
Yeah just a few lol , like more than 60 battles , yeah he just won a few 60 battles 😂
Rhetorical downplaying tactic
Just a few dozen battles
Andrew Roberts is continually attacked and stands his ground even though the so-called moderator is against him this is not a fair intellectual space, they all had it out for him and he stood his ground. Well done sir.
Zamoyski's argument that Napoleon should not be considered "the Great" because of the lack of stability in his political legacy could be used to challenge Alexander the Great's epithet. I found this interesting and I actually see Napoleon in a slightly more positive light, now.
Alexander's legacy endured until the Roman conquests, and his empire only fragmented upon his premature death. Napoleon's legacy fell apart in front of him, he watched France brought to ruin, and his family lose everything.
@@GuruJudge21 Yes but I would also argue that Alexander's success would'nt have been possible if not for his father. Napoleon rose from virtually nothing to become an emperor. Alexander was born with it all laid out before him.
@@user-ys5yv2nz6w I take your point, and I'm well aware how Philip II doesn't get the credit he deserves. However, Napoleon didn't come from nothing. He was a nobleman, and his father was Corsica's representative to the French crown. Napoleon attended military school on his father's dime. He was appointed to his command over the siege of Toulon through politics, and while Napoleon would win the siege and rise to general for it, the reason they were securing the city was to save France's navy, which Napoleon's nemesis Sidney Smith destroyed. After that, Napoleon was appointed to command in Italy, and he was basically handed a situation not dissimilar from the one Alexander inherited except Napoleon would have to perform a coup as well, which I'd argue does him more harm than not in terms of reputation.
And while Napoleon's victories in Italy and Germany were certainly impressive and he did preside over some good reforms (which he is given too much credit for by Roberts, though not enough by Zamoyski), his defeats in Syria, Russia, and Leipzig tarnish them, and Waterloo along with the entire 100 days campaign should prove that he wasn't at Alexander's caliber. Napoleon was responsible for a lot of the bad choices that led to France's defeat, and while some of his reforms would remain, his legacy leads to an era of counter-reform in Europe unmatched since the Thirty Years War.
Also, Alexander did inherit Macedonia but you are seriously ignorant of his history if you think what he accomplished was laid out for him. He did inherit an army from his father, but Alexander made more than enough innovations of his own, and was himself important to his father's conquest of Greece. And while his soldiers and officers were certainly an advantage, Alexander did more than just lead a good army, he was a genius strategist and tactician. His victories are incredible and without a defeat. The biggest mark against Alexander is that he died before his son was born, and still the Hellenization of Asia he brought about has lingering effects to this day.
TL;DR Napoleon wasn't really a self-made man, and Alexander earned his reputation.
@@GuruJudge21 Yeah you're definitely right. Alexander definitely did achieve greatness by himself, not everything he did was pre destined by his fathers actions. I'm just a bit of a Napoleon fanboy lol.
@@GuruJudge21 napoleon's legacy is still here with the code
Of course he is deserving of the distinction 'the Great'. But I wouldn't call him the great. For me the name Napoleon is as indicative of greatness as the word itself.
jdghgh how do you define “great”?
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 getting too ambitious and arrogant leading to disaster for his country by the look of it.
@@MarlboroughBlenheim1 For me, greatness in a historical context combines three primary attributes. First and foremost is historical significance or rather the magnitude of their impact on history. Second is overall competence. Thirdly, though to a lesser extent than one and two, is the contribution one makes to the overall progress and betterment of their world.
@@jdghgh of course each of those factors needs to be defined - what is a significant impact for example?
Do you see? It becomes almost meaningless.
Andrew Roberts had to fight such an uphill battle. Well done man.
Jose Verde agreed! A fine historian.
@@rare6499 Agreed and he was up against two Napolean haters, Paxman is a bigoted tory twat and had no right to moderate this debate!
Considering that Zamoyski was trolling him the whole time.
Roberts was Napoleon at Austerlitz versus the Austrians and Russians of Zamoyski and Paxman - comprehensive victory
@@squamish4244 zamoysky is unbearable. Andrew took it a lot better than I would have!
My conclusion is that Napoleon was indeed Great.
You sincerely need to go back and reevaluate the story, or reevaluate your life, because something is terribly wrong. When you defend Napoleon, not only are you defending a warmonger, a man responsible for the death of innocent millions. A man responsible for the killing of so many young men. A man responsible for the rape of so many women. A man responsible for the destruction of so many children's lives (because that's what war entails), but you are also defending one of histories greatest losers. A man who died in prison, isolated, defeated and full of regrets. A man who left his country conquered by the enemy. A man who destroyed his own army, the most powerful army in Europe through sheer blunders. A man who got ripped off by a new country in the Louisiana Purchase. So go back with a fresh pair of eyes, and realize you are defending a warmongering loser. Something no one should aspire to be.
lsatep 5 wars declared on him and he’s a warmonger ? Laws he made used all over Europe to this very day and he’s a failure. Good joke.
lsatep you are judging an historical figure using modern day values and ideals. By your analysis many of the ‘great’ historical persons shouldn’t be defined as ‘great’. Napoleon is one of the most influential people to ever have been born. Are some of his actions unseemly by today’s standard? Absolutely. Was he still great? By almost any metric, absolutely.
@Isatep you should become a comedian
@@Lonelypressplay you make great points but the Russian withdrawal and Waterloo I dont know about been called great 50/50 tough call
34:03 “This is the Moderator...” HILARIOUS 😂
I'm fine if Zamoyski doesn't want to call Napoleon 'the Great' but saying he wasn't a military genius is crossing a line.
Your asshole crosses the line
Tom Jenner I’m pretty sure he WAS the original lesson to not invade Russia that HITLER did not learn.
@@williamliyuan8225 totally agree.
William Liyuan as much as Napoleon was a genius the precedent of not entering Russia was right there from Charles XII of Sweden
poor mans Wellington.
I love how friendly and genial they both are to each other despite their opposition to one another. I wish all debates were like this
It just shows that they both have such a high degree of intellectual respect for each other, doesn’t it?
I was beginning to despair of Zamoyski's and even Paxman's biased and anachronistic attitude, until this woman hit it on the head at 1:04. They treat Napoleon as if he had just died. He ruled in the early nineteenth century; democracy didn't exist anywhere in Europe or anywhere else for that matter; he was surrounded by absolute monarchies who wished his utter destruction; and their coalitions were paid for by Britain whose so-called 'constitutional monarchy' consisted of rule by the King, the Lords and their place men in the Commons. And in response to Zamoyski also, were the Kings of France and other monarchs of the ancien regime models of modern day moral rectitude and competence in administrative and military affairs? Something could be said for Frederick and Catherine on some fronts, but otherwise no I think is the answer to that. And then he goes on to reveal another anachronistic secret of his, having been commissioned to write a book: apparently Napoleon (as Hitler and indeed Putin were most notably) was elevated by men who thought they could control him. And thereby he contradicts his earlier assertion that Napoleon had just barged into the assembly and had been saved to a large extent by his brother, Lucien. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. The latter story has some element of truth to it in fact; the former just seems to suggest his view of history is particularly unreliable and that he's run out of ideas. And then of course he just goes on to trundle out the same tired old schoolboy standard about Napoleon's increasing megalomania. I for one won't be buying that book. What a waste of time and paper.
you complain about a refusal to treat the time as it's own time, and then insinuate that there was something unconstitutional about Britain's monarchy, 'so called' you say. The purpose, I might say, of that constitution was to preserve civil peace and improve upon what came before, which it did. The European world of that time saw a great many innovations, none of which, save perhaps the concept of an active continent-wide state of war, can be attributed to Napoleon.
By the standards of the time, Napoleon betrayed the revolution and waged wars across the Mediterranean for his own vanity. He was criticized at the time for this.
Moreover, hardly anyone tries to portray his adversaries as great reformers and genuises.
"The study of it has given me a greater idea of his genius than any other" - Wellington on Napoleon's 1814 campaign
he was also a bit stupid about the invasion of russia he went in too deep
@@placeholder9724the rules of war dont apply in russia
Wellington is English, we always support the underdog. Wellington saying he was a genius is the same as saying the other team played "rather well"
@@michaelbrett3749 he was Irish, actually (though he considered himself British before anything else).
@@LjuboCupic1912 anglo irish. and by the time he was a general ireland had joined Britain to form the UK
"It's astonishing this debate is taking place!"
Amen
If we're calling Ivan the Great then we can definitely call Napoleon the great.
+EmperorTigerstar Ivan the Terrible, not the Great, surely
+EmperorTigerstar Didn't expect to see you here!
+John Dow- Actually, the Russian term 'terrible' used to describe Ivan IV translates better as 'Ivan the Awesome' or 'Ivan the Formidable'...
No. It is better translated as dangerous or terrible - Иван Грозный.
No, it's not.. Grosnij ~ (en) grosse, meaning large, uncumbersome ~ grot, meaning great, as in Grote-Pier. Grey, at best., from Scandinavian 'grått', neuter, but the meaning is closer to determinism, severity. the negative connotation is a later addition, like always.
Napoleon was not great, he was THE GREATEST. The professor of energy as Geothe called him. France could not even protect her borders when he took over, 10 years later France ruled the entire continent. Yes he had his faults but nobody in history did so many miracles in such a short time...
Mihaly Kartyas Absolutely
+Mihaly Kartyas But when he declared himself emperor he lost the respect and admiration not only of Goethe but also of Beethoven and Hegel.
A.H was the greatest !
Mihaly Kartyas Napoleon Greatest?Ha,ha,ha,ordinary war crimer.
th-cam.com/video/jdM3ID4m38U/w-d-xo.html
I'm not really a fan of the cognomen "The Great" but if we are to use it, then I think Napoleon deserves it.
I don't support it either because the term is a bit redundant. The name "Napoleon" itself shows his greatness as a person.
Napoleon's name is synonymous with "great"
I'm pretty sure that the only country that would call him great would be France
@@madgoat2692 Poland too
Napoleon the great sucks Napoleon Bonaparte is already intimidating and something out of fiction
Andrew Roberts is my favorite historian, but Adam Zamoysky is the only guy who could make me like Napoleon.
Year later ..I'm going through the same process
We don't call him Napoleon the Great because Napoleon's name implies greatness.
How do I do a DOUBLE THUMBS UP ?
The Great Butcher. Yes.
Exactly. There's no need for Napoleon the Great, just like there is no need for Caesar the Great. There isn't even a need for Napoleon I. There is only 1 relevant Napoleon, and the mention of what Clausewitz calls the "god of war" is enough to render how great he was.
Il faut l'appeler Bonaparte, caporal.
Yup you win the comment wars my dude!!!
Paxman shouldn't have been chosen as moderator. His bias tainted the debate.
I totally agree.
Also Paxman hosts Newsnight on the BBC in the UK. He interviewed Russel Brand not so long ago. He is an asshole.
***** I love Paxman and his take no bullshit approach. Probably shouldn't have moderated though.
*****
He is not an arsehole by no means, but he seems to have taken this whole debate with a pinch of salt -- as did the two protagnosists by the way. It was supposed to be all good fun, and it was.
kyaume21 From what I've seen of him (excluding this debate), in my opinion, he is an arsehole.
watch?v=rcHtddfG98w
You are entitled to your opinion, but it is not a very uplifting one. Anyway, I enjoyed the debate with (I am sure he was on the verge of) yawning Paxman rather than without. In any event any debate where the chairman has trouble suppressing the giggles has my support. Both debaters were good fun as well, and I wouldn't have expected that from the Andrew-guy, who I usually associate with being (another body part) right-wing prick. But he wasn't in this show, and I might even get hold of a copy of his book. I enjoyed this; it had me LOL
Yes, NAPOLEON THE GREAT! NAPOLEON LE GRAND!
No doubt about that!
Thank you, Mr. Andrew Roberts, for writing the book!
Spaz Modicus What a stupid question about the mamluks :)) Are you kidding? Firstly, I do not identify myself with them. Besides, about three hundred of the Mamluks (not all of them were of Georgian origin) arrived in France from Egypt with the French army and they formed a division in the Great Army and were faithful to the Emperor to the end. Secondly, what did Napoleon do to the Mamluks in Egypt? Just defeated them. Is winning a battle something shameful? :)))
Spaz Modicus Have I denied I am Georgian? As for Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia, they have always been Georgian territories. They are not victims of Georgia as you put it - you are deeply mistaken. The truth is that Georgia is the victim of Russia that supports the separatists just as Russia is doing it in Ukraine now! It is a good idea to learn about the matters deeper and better before jumping to the totally wrong conclusions.
Not all the Mamluks were Georgian. It is just a fact. Believe me.
The Georgians helped to organize the genocide of the Armenians? Who told you that nonsense? :))))
Spaz Modicus I am Georgian and I am proud to be Georgian! It is Georgia that is an independent country! The independence of Abkhazia and the so-called South Ossetia is a Russian illusion!
"The Georgians invented a weird alphabet so they could keep things secret." - are you crazy?
And if the Georgian Mamluks were low then Napoleon was right, defeating them :)))
Yes, NAPOLEON THE GREAT! NAPOLEON LE GRAND!
Spaz Modicus All you have to do is to visit a psychiatrist. You are a madman. And your comments sound like letters from a madhouse! I will not answer them anymore. Go to a psychiatrist - you need some serious treatment.
Almost 40 minutes in and no mention of his absolute revolution in being the details master. This is where Napoleon shined, he was so great about the details, which so often the grandiose planners forget. (Of course with much aid from others-which goes to his concept of delegation)
"We are confronted with the enigma of a man of great intelligence, yet often startlingly obtuse in his judgment of men and events; a man intensely human, and even humane in his personal relationships, yet possessed of a daemon of ambition which puts him beyond the pale of humanity: in Aristotle's definition, 'either a beast or a god'."
- Felix Markham, Napoleon
This is the definition of a debate masterclass by Andrew. Very well spoken and answers only in documented facts.
"he couldn't know that typhus would kill 130.000 of his soldiers" yeah...
One of my favourite quotes is in The Anatomy of Glory - Napoleon and His Guard, A Study in Leadership. During his first exile, on the island of Elba, he caught some of the Guardsmen (including 120 Polish Lancers and 607 Grenadiers and Chasseurs) who'd been allowed to accompany him into exile stealing grapes from his vines. "Wait 'til they're ripe", he said.
One of them later said "And you ask why we were devoted to him!"
One reason why I think Andrew Roberts has a point about Napoleon the Great's sense of humour being one of his most appealing characteristics. Like when his horse tripped over a rope during a coastal inspection and threw him into the sea (He laughed it off, saying "It's nothing, it's only a bath"), or when he told Cambacérès, who'd just excused himself for arriving late at a meeting of the Council of State by saying that he'd been detained by a lady, "Next time you're "detained by a lady", say "Take your hat and stick and go Sir, the Council of State is waiting for me". Which is also one example of how religion, class, "race" and so on were less important in his eyes than tending to the public good.
Andrew Roberts gets my Vote for sure ... Napoleon the Great .
The guy in the middle should really check the meaning of the word "moderator".
He is tough enouGh to be rude...
Paxman is a badass ...
Very biased indeed!
I honestly started weeping when I read the letter which Napoleon wrote to Louis Antoinette Lannes, the wife of Marshal Jean Lannes, one of his best friends.
It was so emotionally touching and human, very relatable and not words from the mind of a tyrant or despot.
If only some historians would delve into the world of psychology, they would get a much, much better understanding of the history and characters in it which they are studying.
where can i read it ?
Georgnajam here’s an excerpt at least…
“The Marshal has died this morning, of his wounds received on the field of honour. My pain equals yours. I lost the most distinguished General in my army, & a companion in arms for sixteen years, whom I considered my best friend.”
Dictators can cry, yeah. What a novelty. If Stalin cried, would that make him good?
@@azanulbizar12 You fail to see the context yet again. Stalin murdered 40 million of his own citizens, by design.
Name one situation where Napoleon did this to the citizens or soldiers he governed.
Name one modern day leader who would've written that letter himself, and not have his adjutant or some speech writer do it for him.
If you'd like to compare tyrants, we can do a dissection of Stalin and Hitler to find out who was the more compassionate one of them. Because I've studied history for 15 years now, after primary education, I don't say these things on a whim.
@@Daggz90 It's ridiculous to compare Napoleon to Stalin, beyond saying they were both incredibly influential leaders and so. Stalin's crimes are really hard to match, I agree with that.
On the other hand, I saw recently one of these debaters say that Napoleon was a 'benevolent dictator', would you agree with that?
When I was plodding through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic periods at school, I never dreamed that 40 years later I'd be having a good laugh about it all. Could have listened to this for hours. Wonderful.
I can take you up on that offer.
If you have any questions in the man ask away. I'm well-read
Sorry, but if Napoleon doesn't deserve the cognomen "the Great" then no one does!
Adding "The Great" is strictly an Epithet, which is specifically an an adjective or phrase expressing a quality or attribute regarded a characteristic of a person. A cognomen is an extra personal name given to an ancient Roman citizen, functioning rather like a nickname and typically passed down from father to son.
Ranillon That's fair.
The Great Loser.
@@ger du Napoleon is second only to him and perhaps Ghangis Khan
Kay Em yeah he may have lost 6 coalitions later but he single handedly kicked the shit out of every single great power in Europe all facing him at once 6 times. And also to point out the arguments against giving him the epitaph ‘the great’ because he wasn’t elected, or because he eventually lost doesn’t make sense in that every single European power lined up against him was an absolute monarchy of unelected Kings aside from the Holy Roman Empire that was elected but, the argument is weak imo. Napoleon and the French Revolution was a complete contrast to the ruling power of the day and the status quo and he was forced from the start to have very aggressive policies because he wanted personal glory yes, but he also wanted to spread the ideas of the revolution and to humble those great powers around him. He absolutely deserves the title the great and honestly the fact we even debate this centuries after his death and his code is still used in most modern European republics today is a testament to that fact.
This debate seemed to me to focus too much on the morality of Napoleon's actions instead of the abilities required to undertake them. Greatness, when applied to eminent individuals, should be an attribute which exalts the capacity of a man to excel in his field, it should rarely have ethical connotations.
Though many men ascend to greatness through achievements we would consider to be benevolent, we should also reflect upon the fact that these men more often than not held the same level of ability as Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.
In short, the ethics of Napoleon's actions are broadly irrelevant. He should be considered great because he the ability he was required to possess to achieve what he did.
Why? Nobody would say Hitler 'the great' despite the political power he wielded and the ability he showed to quickly transform a country to embody his principals. So ethics matter, and more to the point, they should matter.
@@xn85d2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights 'People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.'
@@xn85d2 They should, but as long as we see (war) history in a kind of Plutarchian way these discussions are always gonna be muddled. I think N. achievements are really impressive, but you have to acknowledge he was seriously flawed if you look at his inability to share power.
Certainly Hitler was a great orator, and I'm sure will have had other skills. Does that make him great? Absolutely not. Because his legacy was not that of progress, as is endemic to great characters, but one of unimaginable human suffering. Greatness weighed in blood of innocents is not greatness; it's monstrosity
@@arkhammemery4712 that's a fair point, but napoleon started a meat grinder that for the times was insane and people still sleeping on this. "But he fought defensive wars" my ass, napoleon knew perfectly what he was doing. Even Sardinia-piedmont started "defensive" wars against the Hapsburg by provoking the opponent to attack and then counter attacking with speed.
“He did win a few battles” HAHAHAH yes... a few ...
47 of his 60
@@napoleonbonaparteempereurd4676 57
hhhhh lol
Doudou Ferrari YEP!
Enough to make Allied leaders avoid him and focus on his marshals when they invaded France with immense advantages (aside from a few, most of whom were shit without his direct control). He still gave them a drubbing every time he caught up with them.
If anyone else had done half of what Napoleon achieved during his military and administrative career there would be no debate. The only reason we're disagreeing is because he lost and his enemies want to tarnish his career posthumously.
Also he was a warmongering despot who rolled back rights for women and minorities...
It's not so much they want to tarnish his career as they wish to hide how duplicitous, scheming, and pathetic all of the great powers were during these wars. They wish to hide the fact that THEY at least as much as Napoleon, if not less so threw away millions of lives for their own aggrandizement.
Andrew Roberts had to fight two opponents and he still won easily. Napoleon was one of the GREATEST leaders of all time. Period.
Agreed
clown
Wait, what... He lost
yes you can see as the mod and the zel giggle and look into each others eyes.
@@Swift-mr5zi you sure are
His arguments against Napoleon are really cheap.
K 00 yep - essentially he didn’t like him and erm...he didn’t think he was a very nice person. WEAK argument!
I guess his point is that Napoleon lost most important battles. Just like Tyson, he also was amazing fighter but lost all those fights that really mattered after which his career was also done.
@@rlbk3649 Yeah, cause Arcole wasn't important. Neither was Austerlitz. Nor was Jena. Or Friedland. Or Wagram.
@@halorecon95
Agreed, but all (?) these battles happened when Napoleon had strategic upper hand.
But when he was in defence, when things trembled and mattered most, he failed. No concept of how to ensure peace killed him at the end. Great commander he was indeed. But he was not an emperor.
@@rlbk3649 I would recommend you look a bit deeper into the battles. While you could make that arguement for Jena and maybe Friedland, Austerlitz was just such a massive victory against incredible odds that you have to give him his proper due.
There's also the fact that Napoleon wasn't just a great general, but also a great administrator.
Zamoyski calls Napoleon "lying through his teeth" and did I catch correctly he said most of his victories and achievements were someone else doing ? Wow? This guy is really desperate to discredit the man. I dont blame him, its hard hating someone so much you really need to dig deep to find anything against valid against him. I mean, how can any historian say he doesnt understand how Napoleon lost at Waterloo. I pity him, I really do.
His opening argument was absolutely pathetic ‘Napoleon failed to pick up tarts on 3 nights out’ talk about scraping the bottom of the barrel
You do understand his role in the debate is to argue against the motion, right?
@@rhysnichols8608 that was just a bit of humour to start us off. The thrust of his argument is that Napoleon didn't achieve anywhere near as much as he could have.
“The Great” is unnecessary for such a man. The truly greatest only need their name. That is enough to evoke the full-fledged majesty of the individual.
Caesar. Hannibal. Napoleon.
Napoleon brought in the metric system,a French central bank,good public works,streamlined the legal system and could dictate to 3 or 4 people at a time.He was a very bright intellect who knew men and knew how to inspire them,he was personally brave ( see Bridge at Arcoli) hated seeing men suffering though he was a military man himself but would not shy from a fight.He is blamed for what went on in France but people are quick to forget that the revolution had the guillotine and the terror and he ended the chaos.He emancipated the Catholic Church from what had happened to it in the revolution and did the same for the jews giving them all rights as citizens.He could not but fight when it came to the nations about him because they had all declared war on revolutionary France ,he was constantly harassed by the Kings of Europe who saw the threat the ideals of the revolution presented to them by the killing of the Bourbon king and Napoleon as Emperor had to be eradicated
Britain had a revolution too, in fact more than one. The one by Cromwell led to tyranny because Cromwell was a Puritan and people got fed up with the misery of Puritanism. In the end, England fixed its own problem, by putting a king back in place. English kings don't get carte blanche to do what they want. Parliament rules. In effect we have a republic with the minor handicap of a constitutional monarch whose duties are archaic leftovers.
Napoleon got 'eradicated' for stomping all over Europe. You may think of Napoleon as a threat to the idea of monarchies running countries, but effectively he WAS a monarch. His line replaced that of the Bourbon kings. It was just a regime change. It wasn't like he declared himself to be a prime minister presiding over a cabinet with majority decision-making. In that sense, he was not a threat to the idea of hereditary leaders, since he had every intention of being one. But he went too far.
What Andrew left out is the men who Napoleon executed in Jaffa had also tortured and castrated several French emissaries and stuck their heads on pikes on the city walls. It still doesn't justify what Napoleon did, but makes his actions more understandable in the context of the generally benevolent man that he was.
It doesn't?
@@smiley4995 By medieval standards, sure. But by the standards of 1800, after centuries during which the 'rules of war' had slowly been developed (however strange that phrase may seem), the massacre was seen as barbaric.
Those ‘rules of war’ you refer to applied exclusively to the European theatre, though Napoléon initially brought them with him to Egypt. When he learned the hard way the Mameluks & Ottomans were complete savages by European standards, he eventually responded in kind. I can’t say it’s the big deal it’s made out to be.
No one seems to mind that the Ottomans & Mameluks employed similar or worse ruthlessness.
He did mention it in his book, Napoleon: A Life at least
@@ddc2957 True. Agreed.
The greatest problem of Europe in the 19th century were the "prison empires" (Aus, Prus, Rus, Ottom) who held half of the continent's nations under occupation. The only one to actively engage all of them and free some of those nations was Napoleon. For that he gets my eternal gratitude and regret he did not emerge victorious. Europe would'v been spared the first world war and thus also the second, whilst half of it would receive freedom a century earlier.
Jag giello And yet one of the arguments made by Adam was that Napoleon contributed to bringing those very prison empires about.
They weren't oppressive empires!!! (Like how you call it)
Sir George Severn Well that depends. There were definite progressive moves in the 18th century with the 'enlightened absolutists' (Catherine the Great, Frederick the Great, Joseph II), but of course they were still absolutists. In general there was not the liberty of expression allowed in Great Britain or France after the revolution.
Matthew McVeagh
But we cannot look at history through today's lenses. And btw, the French Revolution was a catastrophe.
Sir George Severn I don't understand what you mean by 'look at history through today's lenses'. And if you judge the French Revolution to be a catastrophe that could be said to be looking at history through your own personal present-day lens.
As a patriotic Englishman, I can’t help but admire Napoleon for his achievements and drive. Albeit I do love Wellington and proud of the fact we won Waterloo.
Blücher and his Prussian troops saved the day. Without the Prussians’ decisive arrival, Wellington would have been defeated indeed.
Anyhow you ought to be proud to be British my friend. 😉
✨🇬🇧✨💪✨🇫🇷✨
As a Frenchman, I fully admire Churchill the Great. ✨🇬🇧✨
@@gregvictoire1309 Why do you use the excuse that it was the Prussians who won the battle? Wellington had more than 20,000 more men and a lot of his troops were much more experienced. He was also a much better general than Blucher who lost a lot of battles. Napoleon already made a lot of mistakes in the battle. We would have won without the Prussians. The French morale was already low and they had been fighting all day
@@JJaqn05 Why such revisionism?
Wellington a much better general than Blucher? Based on what? Only because he is English? True that Blucher lost a lot of battles, but he lost them against Napoleon himself (Ligny, Brienne, Jena) or against the best French Marshals like Murat (Lubeck, Prenzlau). That's a bit different that Wellington who only distinguished himself in the Peninsula War, winning battles against the French who were often outnumbered. The best French forces fighting where it mattered the most, against the Prussians and Russians.
Blucher was part of the Allied forces that defeated Napoleon at the battle of Leipzig, which is widely considered as the most decisive win over Napoleon, because it's when he really lost the war. Blucher and Kutuzov are historically considered as the two most important generals for the final victory over Napoleon. Not Wellington (except for the British of course), because the war was not lost in Spain.
As for the battle of Waterloo, you can distort history as much as you want but the facts are what they are. Wellington's army (of which 2/3 were foreigners btw) was losing the battle at 1vs1 against Napoleon. They were on the defensive and about to withdraw when the Prussians arrived, enabling the Allies to outnumber the French at almost 2vs1.
The thing is that Wellington knew he couldn't defeat Napoleon alone with the same number of troops on both sides. His purpose was to hold the ground until the Prussians come to turn the tide of the battle with 50,000 additional soldiers. As Wellington said himself, Waterloo was the 'nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life". Wellington would have never fought Waterloo if he didn't know that the Prussians would come.
I mean, it is widely known among historians that without Blucher, Wellington would have lost and withdrawn. So the "We would have won without the Prussians" is nothing more that pure revisionism based on nationalistic feelings and fantasy. But that's a bit too common among nationalistic people who always need to over exaggerate the role of their countrymen, and downplay that of others, even if history says otherwise. Your comment is the best example of that. It's wrong in every aspect. It's just what you want to believe.
The best part of your comment must be your justification for saying that Wellington would have won, because "the French morale was already low". That doesn't mean anything, it's based on nothing. All the historical facts showed otherwise, and that's the only thing you found to believe that Wellington "would have won without the Prussians". Kinda funny to be honest.
I think Napoleon closely parallels Alexander the Great. Both were of different ethnicities than their nationalities (i.e. Macedonian/Greek and Italian/French). Both were clear military geniuses. Both ruled over continents by their 30s. Both spread the arts and the sciences. Both attempted to unify their empires and advanced their cultures (e.g. certain Hellenistic ideals, certain French revolutionary ideals). Both were in certain respects (not all respects) progressive for their time period. Both were in a sense benevolent dictators. And so on. If Alexander the Great is a fitting moniker, then I think the same moniker should suit Napoleon as well.
I'm a Brit through and through BUT ... I'm also a great admirer of Napoleon - he was indeed a great man.
I'm French, he wasn't. 600,000 death
@@rogue8533 - Napoléon est votre Patron; montrer du respect.
So Wellington was a GREATER man then
He was indeed great!👍
@@rogue8533 you're a far left extremist, besides those few anarchists, all french love him
adam is so biased he cant even admit hes a military genius
Many of Napoleon victories, that are still relevant today was in social reform, the man was not only winning battles he was changing society with the same enthusiasm. Not many people in history did both with his success rate.
Exactly
Paxman is SO biased. He doesn't even try to moderate!
The majority in the audience started out thinking Napoleon was worthy of being called great and that remained true to the end. I consider this an important lesson in the psychology behind elections of any kind: It's easier to swing people "against" something rather than "for" it. If swinging itself and not the overall end percentage is an indicator the "against" vote is always going to win.
Napoleon is clearly one of the greatest men in history of Western Europe.
True.
*world
Just Western Europe?! He's one of the greatest men in history. In terms of military conquest, he's up there with the likes of Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar.
I've listened to this debate a couple times now, since it came out in 2014. The first time I listened to this, I was deep into the Napoleonic lore, and in many ways an admirer of Napoleon. However, I still think the story of Napoleon is a very interesting story, but I am a bit older now and see things in a different light. I'm reluctant to call any historical figure "the Great", as history is complex, and there is always many points of view to every story. I think the best way to read history is by looking into the stories themselfs and appreceating the great stories and tradegies that has happened to us as a collective, and not by loyally attacking or defending a certain person from history.
To quote the great philosopher, Yoda, "Wars not make men great!"
No man is perfect, but we are all judged by our accomplishments in life. Few have accomplished so much, in such short time span, with all the offs against them, as Napoleon has. Even if he merely used the revolutionary ideas to promote his own ambition, the results were a better quality of life for the common folk in the areas he had authority over. He tried to liberate Poland from Prussia, Russia and Austria. He dismantled a thousand year old Empire which had grown stale and without purpose, consumed by gluttony and greed; just as the other Bourbon Monarchies which were despised by the hard working commoners all across Europe. He was our last chance at a saviour, someone to free Europe from the grasp of Bankers and Monarchs whom had no good intent for the lesser folk they governed. Napoleon fought an economic war against the Rotschilds but when the battle of Waterloo was lost, Nicolas Rotschild sold his UK bonds cheap as if the UK had lost and then secretly bought them back at a fraction of their actual worth. An economic coup which yielded Rotschilds more than half of UK financial worth.
Napoleon's history goes a lot deeper than the campaigns, intrigues and politics. He truly was one of the Great, one just has to read more, to understand it.
I agree. And this is why Napoleon endlessly fascinates us compared to other characters from that era like Alexander I or Wellington. He was ferociously complex, and after 200 years it is still impossible to nail down his character. In many ways he is like a human Rorsharch Test: everyone sees in him what they want to see.
@@squamish4244 In Napoleon I see both our highest potential and the capacity for the best of us to be corrupted. I still see him as a net good, but I wished, with a mind like his, he'd done better.
@@MrMuel1205 That's a good way of putting it. Napoleon's greatest failing - which was also, ironically, one of his greatest strengths - is that he had no sense of limits. He didn't know when to stop. And it did eventually become all about him.
What Adam is leaving out, however, is that the reason that Napoleon had to keep defeating coalition after coalition, and therefore the reason his ego became bigger and bigger, is because the British kept refusing to let him be and kept funding his opponents to form new coalitions against him. Although he at least acknowledges how ridiculous Pitt's government was, paying many people to assassinate him.
The British could have let Napoleon be when they signed the Peace of Amiens in 1802, but violated that agreement eventually. They could have let him be at any point before 1812 and Napoleon would have relinquished the Continental System that is the reason he invaded Russia. But they just kept fighting him. And then they formed the national myth that they were the ones who were most responsible for beating him, and elevated Wellington to a status he didn't deserve as the 'hero' of the Napoleonic Wars. Wellington was a highly competent general, but he was no Napoleon and I find attempted comparisons between the two absurd.
Brits arguing over how their second greatest threat to its existence as a nation in its history should be remembered by the world for all time? Interesting. As an American it may be claimed that I am more influenced by British Imperialism than the continental wars of Napoleon in Europe. That being said, without British Imperialism, the colonies would never rise to become the nation I love to be a citizen of, so all in all, I have no personal quarrel with either power of that age. That being said, I feel having this discussion on the forum presented is subject to extraordinary bias as he was Britain's greatest enemy after all,and to blame the entire conflict on him is misguided. In fact, it could be argued that without the antagonism of Great Britain the Napoleonic wars would not be so many or result in such attrition. Undoubtedly, without Britain, France would eventually absorb Austria, Switzerland and Prussia and perhaps bite in to Poland and Spain. To be fair, the other European powers vied for power against one another and would like to cuddle up the biggest kid on the block, to give France an excuse to annex more territory, and that's the way of Empire. Every Imperial power grew through strength and dividing its potential enemies, including Britain, so the hypocrisy is palpable. However, France could never absorb so much land as Germany did in WWII because its military would be much more encumbered by securing the territory. France would simply become on par with or perhaps slightly superior to British power in Europe.
It is only natural that Britain opposed Imperial France, and just as natural that allies gathered against it, and fortunate that this happened, but to blame Napoleon and France for doing just what the other powers in Europe did to expand their power and succeeding seems wrong. Sure, he abused the revolution and proclaimed himself Emperor, but only after the terror and the continual weakening of France through political infighting and weak governments. He simply no longer believed in liberty and Republican governance. During his reign he expanded France's power of influence, implemented central banking, education reforms, the civil code which is the modern basis of French law, maintained a stable government for the first and last time in ages, and most of these gains were largely intact even after his eventual defeat. He took on the greatest powers in Europe again and again and perhaps simply succeeded too much to be acceptable by our modern sentiments. He was the greatest military tactician of his era, a bright and capable civic ruler, and only after over 15 years of fighting in Europe did he make crucial errors in judgement that led to his demise. And so, he deserves the title of "The Great" like his forebearers.
Edo Gelbard good argument. I haven't read any of Andrew Roberts books on Napoleon but I am in possession of Napoleon and Wellington which I will read soon. I have however read a great book called 'Napoleon : A biography' by Frank McLynn which I am reading for the second time and find a brilliant and balanced non biased book that rightly put responsibility on British intransigence when it needs to be put on them and responsibility on the Emperor when it needs to be.
napoleon was never a real threat to britain, we ruled the waves
@@johnholmes912 ruled* past tense. The colonies got you beat now. At least no one is questioning whether Nelson should be called "The Great". Winning a few battles and dying doesn't win you much pomp, consequential as they may be.
@@edogelbard1901 the only colony that beat the British Empire was the Americans with French and Spanish support. All were gradually released and made member of the Commonwealth.
@@johnholmes912 Two words: Nelson, Trafalgar. What Napoleon was on land, Nelson was on sea. Britain wasn't short on incapable commanders, but like other British sea legends, he was far and above his peers. Even with a Nelson, if Trafalgar wouldn't happen, it wouldn't discourage Naploeon from investing resources into another navy, and they could eventually compete on the waves considering the industrial capacity of the continental system he forged.
In short, he WAS a real threat, but trafalgar ended it.
Counterargument: "Oh yeah? Well what has Napoleon ever done for us!"
Napoleon the Great is just right regardless of the blunders and setbacks. "Great" doesn't mean perfect not even virtuous. It is about the magnitude of impact in history and Napoleon was a force in history with only few left to compare with.
There is no greatness without a certain amount of virtue
Well he was spreading meritocracy & equality before the law - his enemies were blue bloods fighting to keep serfs in their fields. So who lacks virtue in the Napoleonic Wars?
If only we have an audio recorded during Napoleon's campaigns can you imagines his charisma and speech to his men
If Napoleon can not be considered "Great", then no one else can be either.
What rubbish ..
Wake from your small well frog life
How can a man who usurped the crown and spent years invading and fighting other countries, costing 100s of 1000s of lives .
Just to lose the war .
Then start another war costing 1000s of lives
Just to lose the war a 2nd time.
How can a man like that
Be called great ?
He was a loser .
Julius Caesar was great.
Constantine 1st was great .
King Alfred of England was great .
Wellington was great .
Admiral Nelson was great.
Duke of Marlborough was great .
Eisenhower was great .
Because they were winners .
Napoleon was a loser with short man syndrome.. :)
@@LastBencher14 wake from your small well rosbeef life
@@LastBencher14 you smell frustration
The most biased moderator I have ever seen. Shame sir!
Andrew Erntell i think its a light hearted debate not strictly a debate
you`ve never even seen german moderators, to them he
is superior !
Paxman was perfect for this laid back fun affair.
Napoleon, the best.
Twice i have tried to listen to this debate, and twice i haven't been able to continue past Adam Zamoyskies part, where he talks about the british bringing rifles to the war, the russians bringing some kind of aiming device for artillery, and Napoleon doing nothing but the same old thing and pouring in waves of troops. It is ludicrous; Napoleon was a tactical innovator, The Grande Arme developed trough the entire period, bus he was a MASTER strategist, and no nations could operate on army-level like the french. The marshalls of France won many army sized battles without Napoleon, and that is testament to the army he created.
Adam Zamoyskie doesnt know what he is talking about in regards to the martial, and it would have suited him to stay on the personal and political points.
MASTER strategist who lost a collective million troops between Russia and Spain...very strategic
@@Swift-mr5zi No he did not; only if you count wounded, missing, stragglers, desserters and captured, most of which where allies. In addition; ask the russians, whether wars are lost by loosing men. Russia was a catastrophe, so was Spain. Both conflicts resulted in the major destruction and setback of Russia and Spain. One can ask; can a brilliant general and statesman overcome uncompromising total war? But of course it was his two big mistakes. Napoleon was defeated in Russia, not at Leipzig or Waterloo.
In essence, what happened to Napoleon, happened to every other bright star in european history; they became to great. Before Russia and Spain, Napoleon crushed every other army he fought for 15 years and brought an impoverished and fragmented France into a position of unity and preeminence, created a unified law code still in use, created the modern administrative divisions of France and brough social reforms to much of Europe.
In my opinion he is as great as Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne and Frederik.
A man who chooses the Mona Lisa for his bedroom and ends the Inquisition in Spain is “ Great”. Andrew Roberts is also great. His Churchill book was stupendous and his bearing throughout this unfair, “moderated” debate with his picayune opponent was impeccable.
picachu
Anyone else think that Roberts looks a lot like Napoleon in his later years?
Yes he does.lol
+Triz Bane Indeed...
If one completely ignores the military campaigns, he still deserves the title "Great."
Zomoyski makes me remember that great speech given By TR “ It is not the critic who counts, the one who points out how the great man stumbles” at the end of the century we’ll still be discussing Napoleon the same cannot he said for Zomoyski because he is merely a critic , a spectator - humorous as he may be
The fact that this debate even took place establishes him as great IMO.
That was utterly brilliant, great arguments on both sides for & against.
Hahaha. "and the books are on sale"
Reminds me of Hitchens line "available in fine bookstores everywhere".
How did Zamoyski swing those audience votes? Roberts clearly won that debate, and knows more about Napolean.
No kidding. I wondered about that too. The undecideds must’ve been ignorant going in and changed their minds on the basis of Z’s “woke” style....unless Paxman messed with the count.
Sheepish audience think arguments like ‘nApOlEoN cOuLdn’T pIcK uP tArTs wHeN hE wAs 18’ are valid.
@@rhysnichols8608 is that all you got out of a 1 hour long debate?
@@rhysnichols8608 The fact that you think a small joke to kick things off represents any significant part of Adam's argument shows how small-minded you are being.
Andrew Roberts is my favorite historian. I'll read anything he writes.
Mr Zamoyski failed badly in being unable to show any kind of balance in his assessment. Was he attempting to present Napoleon as a monster?
Immediately comparing Napoleon to Hitler, Stalin, Saddam is just so absurd. As if the hereditary monarchies of Europe were somehow "democratic"
zamoyski had a lot of good points but in my opinion he failed to sell us on the point that Napolean shouldn't be coined Napoleon The Great. He had flaws as a human being, yes, we all do but he create greatness out of nothing, coming from a semi-noble yet poor family. He rose to power through hard work, eye for detail, talent, corauge, wit, and did a lot of both bad but mostly good things with his power. And therefore there is no reason as to why he should not be called Napoleon the Great because other figures with the title "The Great" have done things much worse than he, for example Alexander the Great.
***** His good points were mostly insulting Napoleon based on height, inability to flirt, and other such traits that have little to nothing to do with being a great ruler.
giveussomevodka yeah, well summarized and true.
***** Especially when you account for the fact that "the Great" is quite different from "the Good". Terrible things can be "great" as their impact is enormous. You can in many ways say the last 200+ years of history can be drawn right to Napoleons doorstep.
Unless you're a twisted twat like Vladimir Putin.
Robert Marchione agreed they should have just defined terms at the beginning because they both clearly had 2 different interpretations of what it means to be great.
Adams arguments seem to be like a personal vendetta of a person that was bullied as a child and relates it to Napoleon
As a frenchman i really enjoyed watching this. Interesting and british humour ats its best.
This is such a treasure. I've read Adam Zamoiski book and now I have to read Andrew's book. This is actually interesting, 'cause Adam defending Napolean was not that geat goes with the feeling I had from reading his book.
Indirectly thanks to Napoleon most latin american countries declared independence from Spain, and particularly my country Chile created its own Civil Code based on the napoleonic one.
Exactly !
Do they teach you about Thomas Cochrane ? He helped Chile win their war
Zamoyski missed the opportunity to point out that on two occasions, when the going got too tough, Napoleon completely abandoned his armies..... just left!!! Once in Egypt and again in Russia. Not the character trait of greatness.
The debate here is silly really. You could go all day and make a strong argument for both sides, and no side will ever "win". A better question would have been "Was Napoleon good for France?". He was an amazing military leader, that is undeniable, but his political policies and ambitions were unsustainable. The only reason he was able to gain the power he did is because there was a power vacuum in France at the time. Napoleon said it himself:
"I found the crown of France in the gutter and I picked it up."
Choices to attack Spain and Russia were terrible, driven by ego and a hunger for power. Napoleon's influences could have been much more effective if tempered by an equally strong political figure. As it was, he was doomed to fail...as he did.
Wrong. He didn't make the point because it's an empty sack
Napoleon pre-approved plans to have his men repatriated by the Britisn Royal Navy before he left.
In exchange they would surrender all their treasures to the British, including the Rosetta Stone.
The British broke this treaty after he left and it had to be renegotiated.
In the end his men were repatriated
Napoleon was a Head of State. Even Adam says in his book 1812: Napoleons Fatal March on Moscow
Napoleon could not afford to stay away from Paris for that long.
His army was retreating back to Vilnius. Murat commanded the army well enough that Napoleon was not needed.
He needed to return to Paris before a coupe could occur in his absence
Kind of a weird appeal to emotion to make. In both instances, staying would be dangerous and futile. There was political unrest to quell on the home front, and fresh troops to raise, train, and organise to continue the fight elsewhere, meanwhile other competent leaders could take over. Had he stayed, people would (rightly) criticise him for refusing to accept reality in dire circumstances (something he is already rightly criticised for in other circumstances ei; the end of his 1814 French Campaign). Do you genuinly think staying would have benefitted his men or country in either case, and how so? I'm not asking to be condescending, I just honestly want to know your thought process there (I know this is two years after your comment so don't feel like you need to respond, I understand if you have better things to do with your time). As for your comment about anyone with the title of "Great" being unfitting for one who's fled the field of battle, I will simply point to the anecdote of Frederick the Great who fled the Battle of Mollwitz during the War of the Austrian Succession, a battle that his army still won. The same man who holds the title of Great despite losing nearly half his battles compared to Napoleons near 90% win ratio. His comment about having picked his crown out of the gutter is supposed to highlight the fact that while anyone perhaps could have picked it up so to speak, it was he who not only did so, but he who managed to defend it from the whole of europe for 15 years. While his grandiose ambitions were certainly unsustainable, considering most aspects of his consitutional, military, banking/tax, religious, and educational reforms are still in place 200 years later, if that isn't sustainable, I don't really know what is. Not like you can't critcise him, Russia to some degree is hard to justify and Spain especially is fairly indefensible on his part. But in the context of this debate, any arguments that stem from morality and/or emotion don't really hold much weight, and blemishes on his career like Spain and Russia aren't enough to sway my opinion on his significance in history. Anyways, cheers.
Andrew Roberts won that by far! He was had an impartial unprofessional moderator and the other speaker both arguing with him at once! Not fair to have two against one at all.
Napoleon did have a war aim when he went into Russia. His aim was to force the Tsar to get back on board with the programme agreed at Tilsit in 1807 and particularly, the embargo against trade with Britain. Where it went wrong was the he foresaw a swift defeat of the Russian forces not too far from the border, and didn't allow for the Russians' option of trading space for time, to which he failed to find an adequate response, but this doesn't mean he initially went in without any aim, as Adam Zamoyski claims - and indeed his own book about 1812 makes clear..
Still a foolish expedition, with or without an aim.
Zamoyski was spouting nonsense half the time. Not as factual or honest as I would prefer a participant to be in this type of debate.
Napoleon the Great? A debate with Andrew Roberts, Adam Zamoyski and Jeremy Paxman 0940am 5.12.23 his uselessness with women being the secret to his success...
36:50
Hannibal Barca, crossing of the alps
Alexander the great, crossing of gedrosia
just to name two.
Somehow Adam shows more respect toward Napoleon by having more expectations from him, beyond his time and humane limitations.
For a truly great and poetic denounciation of Boney I recomend that of Chateaubriand;
"The bloody drama of Europe is concluded, and the great tragedian, who for twenty years has made the earth his theatre, and set the world in tears, has left the stage forever! He lifted the curtain with his sword, and filled the scenes with slaughter ... His part was invented by himself, and was terribly unique. Never was there so ambitious, so restless, a spirit: never so daring, so fortunate, a soldier. His aim was universal dominion, and he gazed at it steadfastly with the eye of an eagle and the appetite of a vulture.
Civilised nations were the victims of his arts, and savages could not withstand his warfare.
Sceptres crumbled in his grasp, and liberty withered in his presence. The Almighty appeared to have entrusted to him the destinies of the globe, and he used them to destroy.
He proved himself the Attila of the West ... He made war before he declared it; and peace with him was a signal for hostilities. His friends were the first he assailed, and his allies he selected to plunder ...
This bloodstained soldier adorned his throne with the trophies of art, and made Paris the seat of taste as well as power ... The weight of the chains which he imposed on France was forgotten in their splendor
Great he unquestionably was, great in the resources of a misguided mind, great in the conception and execution of evil, great in mischief, like the pestilence; great in desolation, like the whirlwind."
chateaubriand was biased as hell
boss180888
Isn't everyone? The point I was making was that his denunciation was way better imo than the one given in this debate.
rockheimr people aren't biased unless they have a personnal interest in it, chateaubriand was an ancien regime aristocrat who lived through the revolution, so to ask of him to describe the events and take his word without thought is careless.
napoleon once said "A wolf doesn't lose sleep over the opinions of sheep
Can you cite your source?
+Miguel Clarke Common phrase going back since beginning of humans.
“Lmao you can’t just take any old quote and attribute it to anybody, you twat.” -Wayne Gretzky
-Michael Scott
@@jrrtt25 Especially since those sheep had just murder the last guy who was king along with his entire family minus a daughter. Napoleon knew the sheep could be dangerous.
Sound like an internet meme to me.....in fact, I've seen it memed several times attributed to different people. I'm pretty sure that quote is actually by Mr. Ed G. Lord
Andrew Roberts could have mentioned that it was only as a result of Napoleon's success in destabilizing the Spanish government that most, if not all, Spanish colonies in the Americas could gain their independence in the 1800's. This is certainly the one thing for which I can thank Mr. Bonaparte.
Yes, Napoleon entered Spain as an ally and betrayed his most powerful ally causing 600.000 deaths and his own downfall. Brilliant, indeed. (On the other hand the Spanish Empire in America went from prosperous Viceroyalties -read Alexander von Humboldt- to poor and corrupt Republics, with Indians being massacred in Argentina and Chile, and dependent on London banks).
War is not pretty in any age. Killing 3000 prisoners is awful, but so is dropping atomic bombs on civilian populations.
frank also starving 4 million to death in 1943 bengal famine by Mr ass Churchill
@Rick R
Thank you! I’m frankly tired of Indian nationalist fanatics and other pseudo intellectuals harping on about Churchill and the Bengal Famine (I am Indian btw).
People like this fellow Card & Code making asinine uninformed comments only manifest their shabby research and intellectual laziness.
I love the atmosphere of this debate. These historians are having so much fun with each other lol
Its great
Why have a debate? Just ask the almighty polymath of Paxman.
I would have liked to hear something about logistics; the invention of the tin can and for example feeding horse grain.
Oh, yeah. I remember that my father (b.1912) told me that Napoleon and his men carried wine because it kept better than water and that specifically Napoleon drank Madeira. My father drank it honor of him.
The great does not necessarily mean the good. He clearly did great things.
They were really arguing past each other for a lot of this. Zemoyski kept making arguments about Napoleon's character and morals, which aren't in my opinion relevant.
Alexander of Macedon got drunk and murdered one of his friends and most loyal generals one evening. He was a deeply disturbed and unwell man, and yet no one disputes his title of "The Great". Why then should Napoleon's lesser personal moral failings disqualify him?
Because they're centuries apart
I can't believe anyone was swayed by Zamoyski's arguments. Napoleon wasn't great because he couldn't get laid? Is that really an actual argument? He wasn't super funny and engaging all the time? He wasn't a genius because, what, all his opponents were "dumb"? This kind of infantile logic was the most ridiculous rambling rant I ever heard from someone who's considered an "intellectual", good grief!
What am I looking at here ? I dont understand what Im seeing. (1) People are expressing different points of view and no-one is getting offended! (2) People are joking with other people who dont share their point of view (3) Where are the women at? How can anything happen without women being involved!! (4) Ditto the absence of transgender and gender fluid participants. (5) No crying. Can someone please explain whats going on here ???
The moderator's reaction to the result would be a mirror image of his reaction to Brexit.
the british has been the biggest obstacle to the unification of the european ever since
david cheng What is the value of the unification of Europe.
haven't seen yet ; perhaps scottish people's veto against secession from the kingdom could explain a little.
david cheng That doesn't answer my question. What I was wondering was, you seem to assume "the unification of the european" is something positive, but I wonder what you think the positive is?
just a presumption that the unification of the european may offer a chance to end the long-term unilateral world which leaves marginal peoples with little choice
david cheng I see what you mean. It's true there are various regionalist agendas such as Catalonia who seek a greater autonomy for their areas as part of an EU that removes centralism from member countries. But Britain has reasons for resisting EU unification, and that regionalism is resisted by other national authorities besides Britain, such as Spain with Catalonia. Also what's this got to do with Napoleon?
His focus was to be compared with his heroes. When compared with Ceasar, Fredrick and Alexander, it brought tears to his eyes.
This was really an abysmal show by Jeremy Paxman, who turned what could have been a lively debate into a 2v1 assault. A masterclass in how a moderator should NOT conduct himself.
This is one of the most British videos I have seen in a while..
A discussion about a French person?
@@justadummy8076 Not necessarily the salient reason but yes among other things