Napoleon Ier,le Grand Empereur

[britt.25]

It´s indeed a question many authours and historians were concerned with. How could a man from a little noble family with italian roots become a man of such power and whose law book were an example for so many countries... I think todays law book of France still contains a lot of Napoleons laws, even if it was changed in some ways. But it´s interesting. Napoleons also wrote rights for the jews, which was quite new at that time, because before that time jews weren´t treated like others...All people, who were born in his country were counted as his people, and I think in France it is still like that. Even if your parents might be from Afrika or somewhere else, you are a french man, if you are born there. I think that´s not the same in all other countries. Please correct me, if it is different. And again to the jews. I have read in the jewish museum in Frankfurt (where I study) that the jews were more than fascinated by him and his laws, he made for them. There were many jews of many other countries, who came to France during the first Empire. They stated that "Napoleon would help Israel to survive". He was very prominent among the jews, almost too much in my view, because in my opinion the reason for Napoleon making rights for the jews mostly wasn´t something like "wanting to help" or having compassion with those people, who were again and again descriminated in the history, because did this man really have feelings like that towards other people, who he did not know? I hardly believe that, because it´s well known how cynical he was, when soldiers fell in his battles. People, who were frightened to die or something were laughed by Napoleon, and he always talked cynically about the lives of his enemies and even his own people, when they were not as brave as he wanted. I rather hold the opinion (and there are also historians, who wrote this) that he made many laws to become more known and more influencial and famous, he knew what would happen though those rights to the jews, he would become more famous. It was a special strategy by him to reach his aims among his people more quickly. It was -in some way- similar with Napoleon and the sciences, I have written a work for the university last year about Napoleon and the sciences (the society of Arcueil), and it came out that -in many cases, even when he was partly very interested and talented in scienes like maths, physics, chemistry and so on, he pushed up them to make a great french culture and to leave a "monument" by him as a protagonist of the sciences (think of his integration in the club of scientists, with whome me made the trip to Egypt and so on) far less because of his personal knowleges and interests (only limited)

[britt.25]

I have to correct one of my statements here, that I once made in this thread or in that of the Bonaparte news. I think it was not correct that the french nationality automatically belonged to everyone, who was born in France. It was not under Napoleon. I remembered to have learned it like that, but in a recent lesson at our university we discussed it differently. I think under the Bourbons it was like that, during the french revolution the understanding of the french nationality was temporarly quite open, because the ideology was the most important. It was possible to get the french nationality by getting a House and property, but if you were against the attitudes of the revolution or was considered as criminal, one could be taken away the french nationality.
During the empire all was a bit more complex, as I have understood it. Important was the analogy from the nationality to a picture of a family. In general only men had the right on being a french citizen! (Officially!) Through labour one could become a citizen for others. For children, who were from parents, who were not french at all, there was the possibility that they could get the nationality, when they are grown up. For Napoleon it was quite important to get new citizens, because the needed them for the army. I think, the topic must be much more complex. Maybe there is anybody, who can add some more points or correct something. The french nationaliy under Napoleon is a quite interesting topic in my view, also if you consider that Napoleon himself was not really totally french..At school we once discussed about the difference of his title: Emperor of the French and not French Emperor...The answer is quite interesting...

[Dmitry Russian]

Nominal sign on one of predecessors of the antiChrist

The horned basis of a sign of Napoleon

[Lucien]

Oh please Dmitri,not the looney tunes again....

[britt.25]

I don´t find it to laugh anymore, he destroys the serious topics.

[Prince_Lieven]

This is a historical forum, not a place to practise a witch-hunt, sending to death burned at the stake all the figures hated by every one of us.

Yseult is right. Keep the discussion polite, please. Dmitry Russian is entitled to his opinion but I would prefer if he based his posts more on historical evidence and less on statements like 'Napoleon was the son of the devil', which lowers the tone of the discussion.

[Dmitry Russian]

I heard, that the body of Napoleon was perfectly kept after its death. I read, that the napoleonic coffin has been opened by members of the French expedition later 19 years after death of the usurper and the predecessor of the antiChrist. They have seen, that the body of Napoleon was perfectly kept and does not differ almost from any mummy. Probably, you know, that the mausoleum exists in Moscow on the Red area. Lenin's body is in this mausoleum. It is Lenin's mummy which lays in opened to a coffin, therefore visitors of this mausoleum can see result of embalming of a body. Unlike Lenin Napoleon is in closed to a coffin which has not been dug in the ground, and it is exposed on a general review. It is not pleasant to me. Please, compare their tombs.

[britt.25]

And what do you want to express with this mail?

I don´t understand it!


And if you do not stop giving Napoleons those names like Usurpator and Antichrist, I will have to contact to moderator again. I thought it was said clearly enough before that other vocabulary is to be used here.

[grandduchessella]

Issues have been brought to my attention here so I feel the need to wade in.

I agree that terms like the anti-Christ are needlessly inflammatory and don't really have a basis here in this discussion. I don't think that feeling Napoleon was an usurper is necessary off-limits if one feels that he took the throne away from the 'rightful' rulers of France or the thrones of other rulers and replaced them with his own relatives.

References to Adolf Hitler seem to be tossed around for shock value. However, it's not out of bounds to discuss Napoleon as a dictator or someone who took control of many countries in Europe through might and compare these to other dictators with similar aims.

Remember that respect needs to be shown to various viewpoints but that there is a certain amount of civility and intellectual reasoning that is expected by the members of this Forum.

[britt.25]

I don´t want to be gotten wrong. I think that everyone shall discuss here, also critizise people of the history, who he does not like, also compare them maybe to other dictators (I made those Adolf Hitler comparisons sometimes by myself!), but it was the way, how it is  presented here by our member, it really seems to me, that he sometimes only appears to say:
"I want to tell the whole world, how I hate Napoleon" and to put this figure down, but without presenting any proof or objective arguments. The tone, how this stuff was presented here had for me something provocating.  I am sorry, if I should be gotten wrong.

[Dmitry Russian]

I hope, that you do not remove my message. I hope, that you will understand, why I agree that Napoleon is the predecessor of the AntiChrist. I know, that John Bogoslova's Revelation exists. But still also interpretation of the Apocalypse is. This interpretation has been made by the orthodox priest. In this interpretation I have seen, that lives of Napoleon and the AntiChrist are very similar. Napoleon and AntiChrist have much the general.
1) That day will not come, while deviation does not take place both the person of a sin and the son of death will not open. In France revolution has occured together with terror and execution of King and Queen. Their unfortunate son has been stirred up in prison. Only after these terrible and tragical events Napoleon has come to French people as its future master.
2) Opposing and extolled above that refers to as the God or a relic, the animal will sit in the Divine temple and will declare itself the God. Napoleon has proclaimed itself the usurper of France and was established in Thuilliries. In relation to Bourbons Napoleon did very bad things.
3) the Name of an animal will be animal. Still also the name of an animal will be искусственнм and compound. Further the name of an animal will be rare and unique. Then the name of an animal will have some pomposit, musical sonority and a height. The napoleonic name really unusual and rare, therefore it so was remembered to people. Still also this name never was characteristic for the French kings. Therefore it is possible to tell, that Napoleon has opposed with itself Louis, Charles, Philippe and Henry. If you divide a napoleonic name on two equal a syllable, the second syllable "leon" is meant by "lion" if to translate this second syllable on the French language. Here  the present ANIMAL!
4) the Animal will come for short reign. Napoleon reigned only 10 years. Something it is possible to tell?

[britt.25]

These ways of concluding seem very strange to a history student like me.
I don´t think that the majority of serious historians would share this kind of thinking & making conclusions.
The always used expression "predicessor of the Antichrist" make me wonder, who the "antichrist" himself shall be.
This is never explained in your statements. Many things seem always repeated in a similar way as before, but are not to be scientifically proved, instead of this your post becomes more and more filled up with superstitious, religious sounding promises, not based at all on any historical facts.
Let´s only take the example with Napoleons name: Surely is this name different from the ones of the Bourbons, because he had another regional background. The original version, how Letizia called her son was "Nabulione" , it´s italian, and she gave him this name in memory of a relative, who had fallen in a war. This name was not very often at this time (in comparison of the fact, how many of the emperor´s descendants still bear this name today), but already existed in Italy. There are many human names, which can be leaded back to animals or something, but what does a name say or prove about a person???
That´s only one example. If you tried to lead a discussion on Napoleon in any historical institute in this way, it would hardly be taken serious.
It seems strongly that superstitious imaginations and "religious" phantasy is confused here with historical facts and sources.

[Lucien]

I don´t want to be gotten wrong. I think that everyone shall discuss here, also critizise people of the history, who he does not like, also compare them maybe to other dictators (I made those Adolf Hitler comparisons sometimes by myself!), but it was the way, how it is  presented here by our member, it really seems to me, that he sometimes only appears to say:
"I want to tell the whole world, how I hate Napoleon" and to put this figure down, but without presenting any proof or objective arguments. The tone, how this stuff was presented here had for me something provocating.  I am sorry, if I should be gotten wrong.

No Britt,I,for one,didn't get you wrong at all.Think you are right that this sort of religious hullabaloo isn't appropiate in this thread.Nothing against religion ofcourse,contrary,but this thread is about Napoleon,and how he was able do get where he got mostly due to a total lack of competence by others.On how he shaped the world during his days,his failures and his achievements,the Code Napoleon many,civilised and enlightened,nations here in Europe still base their laws on.Suppose some just don't catch up with reality as quick as we do.

Ofcourse one is entitled to call him a dictator,and in many ways he was,as we dutch,ao,found out,but there wasn't anyone else around to give shape to a battered continent after the french revolution.A comparison with A.H. lacks any foundation,both started from totally different view points,so lets not go there,I don't have to explain that as that should be clear to all.I sometimes wonder what would have happened with precious russia if Napoleon had succeded,servedom would have been abolished,the Code Napoleon imposed,progress in educational fields come up.But then eventually he would have had to withdraw I'm sure,russia is not a country to take to changes lightly,always by force,as history proved,and not just by 70+ years of dictatorship from within,it's a big rumbling bear,more inclined to fatalism and excesses of it's own making.

Nappy was a one of a kind guy,clever,strategic and a pain in the b*tt to many,but to this day you find his legacy all over Europe,what will be left of many others in 200 years from now?

To Napoleon Britt,cheers!

[Dmitry Russian]

Well, I shall explain, why I do not love Napoleon. I cannot love and respect with Napoleon for very numerous reasons
1) Napoleon conducted numerous wars.
2) these wars have ruined the strongest, most brave and best Frenchmen.
3) these wars were necessary only to Napoleon.
4) these wars were not necessary to France.
5) Napoleon was the enemy of Russia and Russian people.
6) When Moscow has been taken by the French armies in 1812, this unfortunate city has burned down together with 40000 orthodox churches.
7) Moscow has been plundered by the French armies.
Napoleon never was the lawful monarch.
9) Napoleon is the aggressor of an another's throne.
10) unfortunate duke has been shot under his order in 1804.
11) Napoleon has managed with the Spanish and Neapolitan royal families very severely.
12) Napoleon has taken away thrones from the Spanish and Neapolitan kings.
13) Napoleon has created kingdoms for the brothers and sisters.
14) Napoleon wished to marry the sister of Russian emperor.
15) Napoleon married the Austrian princess.
16) Napoleon has created new nobility from children of innkeepers and grooms.

[britt.25]

Dmitry, nobody forces you or anyone to love the monarch Napoleon. Everyone has the right to have his own opinion towards his person and his aims. I can agree that there many facts concerning Napoleon that seem dictatoric of people of our times, when we see it in history book and read about it. Especially, when he consider certain other powerful statesmen after him...But when it is stated that Napoleon was an usurper and an aggressor on one others throne, there should also be marked that the french people had much problems with the kings and the monarchy before Napoleon, as well, or why do you think that the brutal revolution happened, if everything was fine with the french system?  The french wanted a change, the old monarchy was already broken. Napoleon did not take away the crwon from the hand of Louis XVI! That´s only one point, surely Napoleon is well known for having put the crown himself on his head, but he was elected by the people as emperor! The majority of people wanted him as that time, and I also think that he had good aims at the beginning, for example creating the new lawbook and other points, but he went too far at the end with his many wars and became dictatoric also in his behaviour. This discussion seems more and more like a simple black and white thinking.
And yes, nobody likes the wars, that were happening in Napoleons time, but sometimes things are also necessary for changements of others. Your argument that Napoleon was a enemy of the russian people and destroyed Moscow can be understood by everyone, but I think this point especially hurts you as you come from this country, and it´s something quite personal, but to remain objective he was not the only monarch, who leaded wars. Even when he seemed to lead more than many others. Concerning the innocent duke of Enghien, who had been shot, and other executions, that´s right, that is a point I don´t understand as well. He always feared people, who acted against him, but the truth was that he duke was innocent. But I know, there were many people, also among Napoleons stuff, who never forget him this deed. Two arguments I do not really understand: The fact that napoleon married an Archduchess was necessary to him to connect himself with the european dynasties and to save his familyline and get a male heir.  Josephine could not give him any children, so who should he have married instead of Marie Louise? A civil person? That would hardly have been possible. And Maries Louises fate was not not too bad in comparison with others. She lived at grandduchess of Parma later on and has still descendants from her Neipperg children today. And what about the argument with the new nobility? That´s a point, where I do not really understand you critism. Instead of the monarch before him, who simply sweat the poor people and said as fatty king on his throne, Napoleon gave people from simple families to chance to rise to the top, when they were talented, and that´s something positive.
If you put all together, many of your statements, why you do not like Napoleon are very personal- too personal in my view.