Napoleon or Hitler?

Dec 2017
185
Germany
Would you describe Hannibal Barca as brilliant?
You have a point.

I would describe Hannibal, Alexander and Caesar as being the greatest commanders of armies in the history of warfare, even though the latter ultimately failed in his enterprise.

Hannibal is the only commander in Alexander and Caesar´s league.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,909
USA
some references

------------------------------------------------------------------------
The French Army, 1750-1820: Careers, Talent, Merit
By Rafe Blaufarb
page 170
Napoleon’s preference for officers from a more elevated background reflected his assumption that feeling out recruits in the lower echelons of society could only yield merger returns.

In the Napoleonic conception , education was not supposed to foster social mobility , but rather offered a political acceptable way of making class based social selections.


In part, the regime’s desire to improve the social composition of the officer corps was intended to reinforce the hierarchical subordination. Although the had made their reputations commanding troops of the republic Napoleon and his inspectors regretted the passing of the precise graduations of the the royal army where a clear cut “line of demarcation” separated the officers form the lower ranks. The Revolution , in their view had eroded this line. In their postwar reviews the inspectors found that , although the soldiers generally obeyed their officers, subordination was too loose and relations between the ranks too democratic. Baraguey d’Hillier described discipline in the 83rd demi-brigade as “very lax, very unhierarchic” and expressed shock at the “great familiarity” which existed between officers and men.
page 171

To sharpen distinctions between the ranks in an army still imbued with the principle of civil equality it was necessary that officers posses a superior education the “sole legitimate basis of inequality” Marhsal Marmount , Napoloen’s former military school classmate went even further. To strengthen “the structure of obedience” he wrote the officers authority should be bolstered by instruction , illustrious birth and elevated social position.

page 172
To make military careers attractive to young men of good family , Napoleon did more than just purge the officer corps of socially undersibale officers. He also reinstututed the practice abolished by the convention of granting direct officer comnsions. He believed that as long as republican egalartarism continued to dictate officer recruitment policy - requiring those who aspired to commissions to begin their service as simple soldiers - the right king od people would shun the military profession. Only prospect of immediate officer rank - offering distinction form the common solidery . the promise of more rapid advancement and social status - would induce elite families to send their sons into the military profession.

page 174
in the regular units, commanders quietly reinstated the old regime practice of recruiting young men from well -connected military families as volunteers with the assurance that they would vibe proposed for the first available second lieutenancies


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cages of Reason: The Rise of the Rational State in France, Japan, the United ...
By Bernard S. Silberman
page 110
“The concern about recruitment to the auditor became evident as their number expanded and it became apparent that the position was seen as the entrance to the most senior careers. Napoleon began by using social status as one of the primary criteria for the appointment of young men to the office”

page 112
“by his tendency to nominate young men from aristocratic families to auditeur posts”


page 116
“However , he had created and specified the place where individuals could arrive if they had the right to education and the economic and stsocial status necessary to acquire that education”
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taking Liberties: Problems of a New Order From the French Revolution to Napoleon
By Howard G. Brown, Judith A. Miller



page 126

What we find in the case of the french army after Brumaire is that, without ever breaking openly the ideal of a career open to talents, Napoleon sought to raise the social level of the officer corps by recruiting long men from good families.

page 136


Although no group was formally barred form admission , the school’s politics; function and substantial tuition payments demanded ensured that all but the prominent and wealthy would be effectively excluded.

As mentioned above, letters of application and recommendation - devoting more attention to the service records of fathers and uncles than the qualifications of applicants - testify to the revival of an ethos of hereditary service among Napoleonic elites.


page 141
Asia well-known , Napoleon attached great importance to rallying Old regime nobles to his regime. One of the ways to do this was by naming their sons directly to the officer corps. He awarded commissions to young men from illustrious french families.

page 142
in 1809 the military school, velites , gendarmerie d’ordonnance , and all the other iinstutions of direct officer recruitment together accounted for only forty-three per cent of newly commissioned officers.

page 144
Napoleon’s de facto division of the officer corps into two classes - those directly commissioned , who would occupy the superior ranks and those , promoted form the common soldiery , who could dat best hope to wind down their long careers as captains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have here a few reliable sources to answer to you friend


The Code Napoleon established equality before the law, emphasized the sanctity of the family, and assured the legal gains ...

https://www.napoleon-series.org/ins/weider/c_peace.html




Napoleon Bonaparte was considered by most the be the savior of the French Revolution by ending it and putting in place a government that brought equality and stability to a torn country. The French Revolution was actually a series of wars that would fail because the governments put in place after the fighting would fail. The most notorious was the Jacobins whose Reign of Terror created great upheaval in France. The Bourbons were the rulers before the revolution and were the cause of everything that had transpired. Napoleon’s seizure of power made sure that neither of these parties would control France. Napoleon instead united France, no longer would jobs be given to those merely because of social status. The French under Napoleon would become united, strong, and most important equal. Napoleon brought stability and direction to a country without a course. His unification of France would have a profound impact on not only Europe, but the entire world.


NAPOLEON BONAPARTE

Considering the thread it must be noted that the Catholic Emperor Napoleon treated Jews with respect and equality, compare that to Hitler.
 

JoanOfArc007

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,909
USA
What did Napoleon do to promote equality?
Napoleon fought for equality among man ,


The Napoleonic Code was mostly based off of Justinian’
s Code which was Roman Law. The code divided Civil Law into three categories; Personal Status, Property, and Acquisition of Property. These were the main ideals of the French Revolution. They wanted the entire country to be on equal footing despite whether one was rich or poor.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
And no, the Napoleon did not "just overwhelm his enemies with numbers". He was brilliant at out-strategizing his enemy. He fought some 60 battles in his military career and only lost 8 of those.
.
depends how you count them. I've seen these numbers before while mostly true, the count is off by a few here and there Berezina was not a victory, Napoleon was not in command at Toulon and firing some canon at a mass disturbance just inst a battle.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
It
Battle of Austerlitz (One of Napoleon's most spectacular victories)
French Forces - between 65000-68000
Russian & "Holy Roman Empire" coalition forces - Between 85000 to 95000
.
whats your source for these numbers?

Goetz gives 74,000 v 81,000
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
I
My point is that the new revolutionary government had to completely rebuild their army. Napoleon played an enormous role in this, under his command for the first time you did not have to be high born to become a high ranking officer, you just had to be good at your job.
.
I have provided plenty of sources which show this statement to be false. Wealth, Family Name, connections were very important to promotion within Napoleon;s empire. His brothers, Murat. low ranking people had climbed to the top in ancient armies and empires, occasionally, Mack wasn't high born, one of Alexander's ministers was the son of a peasant. You statement for the first time is just false. Yup the French army and empire it was easier but wealth, connections, fairly mattered more.

Given the vast army fielded by France, the large casualties, the fact most of the nobles had fled there was little choice.

The swift promotion to high rank of most of Napoleon's marshals happened under the revolutionary regimes, not Napoleon's.

Napoleon was appointed commander of the army of Italy solely due to his political connections.
 
Last edited:

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
Napoleon fought for equality among man ,


The Napoleonic Code was mostly based off of Justinian’
s Code which was Roman Law. The code divided Civil Law into three categories; Personal Status, Property, and Acquisition of Property. These were the main ideals of the French Revolution. They wanted the entire country to be on equal footing despite whether one was rich or poor.

NAPOLEON BONAPARTE
AS Napoleon instituted a new order of nobility this is just false. There is not a leg to stand on. Napoleon did not believe in equality. How is this reconciled with an order of Nobility , a hereditary order no less?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
I think that you might have misunderstood my point here. France was nowhere near the "overwhelming military power" which you are suggesting that they were during the war against the First Coalition. Remember that the entire French army had been devastated by the revolution. They had lost most of their commanding officers, whom were mostly nobles at the time, and were heavily under resourced. There was also very little will for another war among the French population after the horrors of the revolution.

The french army was so ill-disciplined and under resourced at the time that during the Battle of Marquain (Against the Prussians and Austrians coalition) they fled at the first sight of the Austrian forces and killed their own commanding officer in the proccess.

My point is that the new revolutionary government had to completely rebuild their army. Napoleon played an enormous role in this, under his command for the first time you did not have to be high born to become a high ranking officer, you just had to be good at your job.
That doses not change the basic facts. in 1805 Austria faced France with relatively small Russian assistance . The over all proponderence of force favoured France, sam in 1806, 1807, 1808, 1809, 1812.

In most of his campaigns Napoleon enjoyed a superiority of numbers in the theatre of action.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,675
As you can see, it was very much about stopping the spread of the "Revolution" across Europe. The aristocrats could in no way tolerate their right to rule being challenged by a bunch of "peasants and upstarts".
.
simply not supported by the facts. The other powers did not uncompromisingly , vigorously purse war against France. Most of the Coalitions were shaky and dint include all powers, In the first coalition other powers were happier partitioning Poland.

The other powers generally went to war with France because their interests were threatened. The idealogical hatred of the the French regime while it motivated some , was not a factor that decided war or peace for the other major powers.
 
Nov 2017
2
Paris
Thank you for reading this, humbly I am not all knowing so if I made mistakes please correct me.



How could you say that Napoleon wasn't genocidal when he gave order to wipe out every black people ? He wanted to re-establish slavery and slaughtered more than 100,000 Caribbean slaves.

"In simple terms, Napoleon ordered the killing of as many blacks as possible in Haiti and Guadeloupe to be replaced by new, docile slaves from Africa," Claude Ribbe


He may have inspired Hitler genocidal actions in my opinion. For those black he is Hitler.

He was clearly a great Tactician but he was unfocused due to all his affairs and by effet de conséquence has lost his end goals.
Both Hitler and Bonaparte had been sick of the sickness that only Genius or Fool can get: " under-estimation of your enemies". And this sickness drove them to repeat the same tactics over and over again... Guess what ? The opponent adapted.



So no Napoleon wasn't promoting equality neither Hitler. Both were Genocidal. Both were warfare Genius it doesn't matter who devised the war plan, Alexander had great logistician I bet you 1 $ that nobody here can give me the name of one of his logisticians, same goes for Juluis Kaiser who had great engineer(Alesia) and nobody here can give me the name of one of them.
  1. Both were imbued by their early Victories and lost the sense of danger "Ceci est très mauvais pour la guerre".
  2. Both lost a campaign that they should have normally won by avoiding strong enemies or knowing when to stop.