Napoleon or Hitler?

May 2019
14
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
#72
Well, Stalin's lack of charisma still saw him ruling for 30 years while Hitler ruled for only 12. I'd say that means charisma is a bit overrated in the long run.
Well, we cannot cite only charisma in this context. After all, charismatic leaders, contrary to non-charismatic, have a greater influence on theirs descendants lives. Look at Lenin or, let's get back to the topic theme, Napoleon's legacy: it's stated that he had built a new, bourgeois-like political system for 19th century. Or, speaking of Lenin's legacy: he developed a theory, on which was based one of the 2 most powerful countries in 20th century. And I'm not giving an assessment to this theory, none at all. Just the fact that his theory and charisma had an influence for so many years.
 
Feb 2019
54
Planet Earth
#74
Well, Stalin's lack of charisma still saw him ruling for 30 years while Hitler ruled for only 12. I'd say that means charisma is a bit overrated in the long run.
I disagree. Stalin was a bad orator since Russian wasn't his first language, but had a quiet charisma, as Roosevelt and others witnessed:

Creepy here:

Hitler, although a passionated speaker, seems less charismatic to me.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
54
Planet Earth
#75
Napoleon, of course. Hitler is perhaps the most overrated mad-man of history. He lost, and his people lost and suffered badly with him. His ideology of hate and racism will always attract followers, that's another thing. It's primitive human instincts.
 
May 2019
14
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
#77
I disagree. Stalin was a bad orator since Russian wasn't his first language, but had a quiet charisma, as Roosevelt and others witnessed:

Creepy here:

Hitler, although a passionated speaker, seems less charismatic to me.
I think it's more about what is charisma to you. As I know, this philosophical notion's tough to explain. In psychology I found an interesting (and debatable, though) explanation to it: charisma - it's any deviation of psychological character. It's wider than we used to see: psychology sees that any person with deviation is paid more society's attention. That's why some (not everybody) of them become leaders.
 
Likes: Nina Beria
Feb 2019
54
Planet Earth
#78
Never thought about that... is it because of his Georgian origin?
Well "bad" is subjective. But in his speeches, he strikes me of being totally indifferent to the public, perhaps he wasn't confident because of the language, perhaps he just didn't care about reactions.

Among the Bolsheviks Trotsky and Kaganovich were the better orators from what I've seen.
 
Likes: joaocm
Feb 2019
54
Planet Earth
#79
I think it's more about what is charisma to you. As I know, this philosophical notion's tough to explain. In psychology I found an interesting (and debatable, though) explanation to it: charisma - it's any deviation of psychological character. It's wider than we used to see: psychology sees that any person with deviation is paid more society's attention. That's why some (not everybody) of them become leaders.
I don't know how to explain it... Osama bin Laden (sorry if I offend someone), for instance, I would consider a naturally charismatic man, but Hitler's charisma seems artificial. In person, he was socially awkward.
 
May 2019
14
Saint-Petersburg, Russia
#80
I don't know how to explain it... Osama bin Laden (sorry if I offend someone), for instance, I would consider a naturally charismatic man, but Hitler's charisma seems artificial. In person, he was socially awkward.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about! We cannot explain what charisma is to ourselves, because it's something based on undercurrents in our mind.
 
Likes: Nina Beria

Similar History Discussions