Napoleon Bonaparte was the Greatest.

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
3,559
Republika Srpska
I don't really like him because he was basically the reason for the fall of the First Serbian Uprising, but he was a great general, though he could at times bite more than he could chew, Russian campaign being his biggest blunder.
 
Feb 2019
867
Serbia
Only French also overrun Low Countries by 1795. France achieved victories in Austrian Netherlands and annexed those territories. In 1795 Prussia also left the war.

Suvorov was forced to retreat from Switzerland and Russians abandoned the war in 1799, before Napoleon even returned to Europe. In 1800 Moreau achieved decisive victory over Austrians in Battle of Hohenlinden. Napoleon was saved from defeat by Desaix at Battle of Marengo in 1800. Not to mention, that a lot of credit in 1800 campaign also belongs to Massena.
I agree, I never claimed that France didn't win in the Low Countries, just that you claiming them beating the Dutch Republic was not an achievement to throw in as they were not a formidable enemy, Austria however was. With the rest you are absolutely correct.

Napoleon's performance in Italian campaign was great. However, he also never fought great or really talented military commanders during his First Italian Campaign in 1796 - 1797.
I hate this argument of ''he didn't face good generals so he wasn't good himself.'' Because he won and those generals lost it shows that he was good while his opponents weren't. As a matter of fact he did face a good general, Archduke Charles. Granted he arrived too late and was outgunned so he couldn't really do much but Napoleon managed to push him out and beat him, however he didn't manage to destroy his army which is to his mistake.

Napoleon still abandoned his soldiers in Egypt. What reaction would be now in USA, if some general abandoned American troops in hostile land and ran away ? He certainly wouldn't be glorified that much.
Egypt shows Napoleon at some of his worst as a general in my opinion. I would say that his landing with only 40.000 soldiers in a large, hostile land was a mistake to begin with. However at the point of his escape what could he do? The fact that he got himself in that situation speaks for itself but he had no choice but to run away at that point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion
Sep 2016
1,278
Georgia
I hate this argument of ''he didn't face good generals so he wasn't good himself.'' Because he won and those generals lost it shows that he was good while his opponents weren't. As a matter of fact he did face a good general, Archduke Charles. Granted he arrived too late and was outgunned so he couldn't really do much but Napoleon managed to push him out and beat him, however he didn't manage to destroy his army which is to his mistake.

Egypt shows Napoleon at some of his worst as a general in my opinion. I would say that his landing with only 40.000 soldiers in a large, hostile land was a mistake to begin with. However at the point of his escape what could he do? The fact that he got himself in that situation speaks for itself but he had no choice but to run away at that point.
Yeah, I agree with you on ,, didn't face good generals '' argument. It's just that many Napoleon admirers and others love to bash Alexander the Great with that argument, for example. I've discussed it so many times in various debates.
Still, Napoleon wasn't as decisive and brilliant against Barclay de Tolli in 1812 - 1813 , Kutuzov in 1812 , Wellington in 1815 and Archduke Charles in 1809.

I also share your view on how Egyptian expedition was a mistake from the beginning. Though Napoleon didn't have a choice but to run because of his ambition. If Napoleon wanted to rise higher, than yes. He should've ran away. However, Napoleon did it on his own initiative. He abandoned the army on his own accord, without any order from Paris to do so. Napoleon would be court-martialed in any country, for doing something like that.
 

Larrey

Ad Honorem
Sep 2011
5,760
In 1794 the Revolution abolished slavery in 1802 Napoleon re-legalised it.

Over to you.
Well context matters, and in this case the 1802 decision is related to how many slaves were actually set free as a consequence of the 1794 legislation.

Especially since the UK was offering to accept Carribean French colonies into their empire without requiring abolition.
 
Oct 2014
24
Britain
King of Rome Wrote - Rommel? He's an over propogated, nothing stands very decisive in his campiagns since he was under control of the indecisive Hitler.
This is from post 22#

You include a list of five names on a few lists in this post which includes Heinz Guderian twice, please explain to me how you rate Guderian as the greatest in any sense but describe Erwin Rommel as you do above.??
It just makes no sense to me What exactly did Guderian do to get on your (5) greatest lists:

(Please note i am not making any case for Rommel but fail to see how you could ever make any case for Guderian either) Does the highlighted sentence not apply to every Wehrmacht/Heer Officer from WW2 ??
 
Feb 2019
345
California
Yes, he controlled a unified nation (his secret Police saw to that) one of the most powerful armies of his era, a decent navyand either controlled or could intimidate most nations in europe.

He could have sat back, got the economy under control, improved welfare, built up his manpower and manufacturing and left France in a better position.

Instead his psychological flaws meant he could never live with a deal, if he had a problem he sent an aPrmy instead of a diplomat, he strangled trade, threw his population away in interminable wars that drained his economy and let his navy shrink to allow the army to be paid for, giving Britain control of Frances colonies and the income from them that he desperately needed!

Napoleon was a first rate General, a vsionary with the legal reforms needed to run a country, its just a pity he was a ham fisted ruler and could be outclassed as a diplomat by a friday night drunk.
The U.K. was never going to let Nappy be regardless. People seem to overlook that fact in evaulating the man's alleged bloodthirstiness.
 
Feb 2019
867
Serbia
The U.K. was never going to let Nappy be regardless. People seem to overlook that fact in evaulating the man's alleged bloodthirstiness.
They tried in 1802, it didn't work. Napoleon wasn't going to let them be either, he actively wanted to isolate them from the European affairs and weaken them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gvelion
Feb 2019
345
California
I agree, I never claimed that France didn't win in the Low Countries, just that you claiming them beating the Dutch Republic was not an achievement to throw in as they were not a formidable enemy, Austria however was. With the rest you are absolutely correct.



I hate this argument of ''he didn't face good generals so he wasn't good himself.'' Because he won and those generals lost it shows that he was good while his opponents weren't. As a matter of fact he did face a good general, Archduke Charles. Granted he arrived too late and was outgunned so he couldn't really do much but Napoleon managed to push him out and beat him, however he didn't manage to destroy his army which is to his mistake.



Egypt shows Napoleon at some of his worst as a general in my opinion. I would say that his landing with only 40.000 soldiers in a large, hostile land was a mistake to begin with. However at the point of his escape what could he do? The fact that he got himself in that situation speaks for itself but he had no choice but to run away at that point.
We need to recall that when Nappy landed in Egypt, he had no way of knowing that Nelson was going to destroy his fleet. He didn't have our hindsight It makes a difference.
 
Feb 2019
867
Serbia
From what I have read it was pretty much the opposite.
Feel free to give these sources then.

For the treaty of Amiens in 1802 here it is:

Official text - Treaty of Amiens, March 25, 1802 - Napoleon & Empire

You can read it and instantly see which points were broken by Britain and which by France.

A particular outrage erupted in Britain after Napoleon took Switzerland, Britain felt it was being isolated from the continent.

We need to recall that when Nappy landed in Egypt, he had no way of knowing that Nelson was going to destroy his fleet. He didn't have our hindsight It makes a difference.
The whole expedition was a mistake. He had too few men to actually conquer and control Egypt for any length of time. Nelson destroying his fleet played a part in the French defeat but there were other factors as well. He messed up his logistics, committed some...unpleasant acts such as the Jaffa Massacre and just bit off more than he could chew.