Why was Napoleon Bonaparte considered so great?

[HeXploiT]

I am seeking a little education here. It seems so many time throughout American history our forefathers made note of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Well my question is why was he considered so great? What did he really accomplish? So far the only major lasting accomplishment I have learned is that Napoleon, for all intents and purposes, ended the reign of the first Catholic church as the national head of state(Roman Catholic church state).
What is strange is that I had never even thought about this until I started reading about it recently. They certainly never mentioned it in highscool history and I didn't study history in collage.
Anyway I'm looking for some views here and possibly some good chronological sources so if you have any(aside from wiki please) I am interested in them.

 

[nageov3t]

off the top of my head, isn't he credited with the end of the french revolution, nationalism, the rise of europe as we know it, and traveling through time to the year 3010 to save the human race from evil robots?

 

[dfdave12]

Not really going to go into great detail, but his military genius was unmatched at that time and some of the tactics he implemented were extremely revolutionary.

 

[Farang]

So you don't want to go to wiki, which will provide you a great basic chronological history of Napoleon, but you are willing to learn about him from random comments at P&N. That makes a lot of sense.

 

[silverpig]

Uh, how about the fact that he basically conquered all of Europe?

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Farang
So you don't want to go to wiki, which will provide you a great basic chronological history of Napoleon, but you are willing to learn about him from random comments at P&N. That makes a lot of sense.

Not random comments but discussion. Nothing against wiki. If you like it that's great for you.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Farang
So you don't want to go to wiki, which will provide you a great basic chronological history of Napoleon, but you are willing to learn about him from random comments at P&N. That makes a lot of sense.

Not random comments but discussion. Nothing against wiki. If you like it that's great for you.

I just don't understand why you're posting your google queries here. And what you're asking us for is available on wiki in the order you requested.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Uh, how about the fact that he basically conquered all of Europe?

 

[jonks]

wiki ftw? it's been shown to be as accurate as any encyclopedia

 

[SpunkyJones]

Originally posted by: silverpig
Uh, how about the fact that he basically conquered all of Europe?

lol, oh yah , there was that.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Farang
So you don't want to go to wiki, which will provide you a great basic chronological history of Napoleon, but you are willing to learn about him from random comments at P&N. That makes a lot of sense.

Not random comments but discussion. Nothing against wiki. If you like it that's great for you.

I just don't understand why you're posting your google queries here. And what you're asking us for is available on wiki in the order you requested.

I just said. Discussion.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Farang
So you don't want to go to wiki, which will provide you a great basic chronological history of Napoleon, but you are willing to learn about him from random comments at P&N. That makes a lot of sense.

Not random comments but discussion. Nothing against wiki. If you like it that's great for you.

I just don't understand why you're posting your google queries here. And what you're asking us for is available on wiki in the order you requested.

I just said. Discussion.

so you want me to go to wiki and read why he's great and then parrot it here? otherwise i think you're in the wrong place if you are looking for scholars of 18th-19th century france

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Perry404

Originally posted by: Farang
So you don't want to go to wiki, which will provide you a great basic chronological history of Napoleon, but you are willing to learn about him from random comments at P&N. That makes a lot of sense.

Not random comments but discussion. Nothing against wiki. If you like it that's great for you.

I just don't understand why you're posting your google queries here. And what you're asking us for is available on wiki in the order you requested.

I just said. Discussion.

so you want me to go to wiki and read why he's great and then parrot it here? otherwise i think you're in the wrong place if you are looking for scholars of 18th-19th century france

I don't want you to do anything. I'm attempting to stimulate discussion. You're not really helping.

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: Perry404
I am seeking a little education here. It seems so many time throughout American history our forefathers made note of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Well my question is why was he considered so great? What did he really accomplish? So far the only major lasting accomplishment I have learned is that Napoleon, for all intents and purposes, ended the reign of the first Catholic church as the national head of state(Roman Catholic church state).
What is strange is that I had never even thought about this until I started reading about it recently. They certainly never mentioned it in highscool history and I didn't study history in collage.
Anyway I'm looking for some views here and possibly some good chronological sources so if you have any(aside from wiki please) I am interested in them.

Because French is the single most important ally American had throughout the revolution? Just like Bush and Blair would praise each other even tho neither one of them accomplished much.

 

[HeXploiT]

Originally posted by: rchiu

Originally posted by: Perry404
I am seeking a little education here. It seems so many time throughout American history our forefathers made note of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Well my question is why was he considered so great? What did he really accomplish? So far the only major lasting accomplishment I have learned is that Napoleon, for all intents and purposes, ended the reign of the first Catholic church as the national head of state(Roman Catholic church state).
What is strange is that I had never even thought about this until I started reading about it recently. They certainly never mentioned it in highscool history and I didn't study history in collage.
Anyway I'm looking for some views here and possibly some good chronological sources so if you have any(aside from wiki please) I am interested in them.

Because French is the single most important ally American had throughout the revolution? Just like Bush and Blair would praise each other even tho neither one of them accomplished much.

Good point. Hadn't thought about the fact that the founders definitely would have viewed the French even more favorably than we do today.

 

[BeauJangles]

When you examine military history you often find that each era of warfare has its great generals and strategists. During the Second World War, both Patton and Rommel were considered geniuses among mortals. Yet, Napoleon is considered the single greatest tactician of the past two hundred years because, unlike other great generals, he emerged without any great advances in warfare technology. Both Rommel and Patton embraced mobile warfare and understood it to its very core far better and more completely than others. Napoleon, though, conquered most of 'civilized' Europe without any great advance in technology - without machine guns, or smokeless cartridges, or rifled barrels. His soldiers, though numerous, weren't particularly better trained or better equipped to handle 19th century warfare. No, Napoleon decimated the armies of Europe simply by out thinking them.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

There are about ten dozens of books, read one, don't expect us to do your homework assignment for you.

However, mention some shit about Patton and Rommel as Blinder bomber suggests, that will do fine.

And no BlinderBomber, just because you don't know shit about the issue, you can't just make shit up, he didn't just outthink them, he and his generals killed them all, do you know why? of course not, do you have any clue at all?

 

[sandorski]

Canned Food!

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are about ten dozens of books, read one, don't expect us to do your homework assignment for you.

However, mention some shit about Patton and Rommel as Blinder bomber suggests, that will do fine.

And no BlinderBomber, just because you don't know shit about the issue, you can't just make shit up, he didn't just outthink them, he and his generals killed them all, do you know why? of course not, do you have any clue at all?

I hope you're being sarcastic. My point boiled down to: If for no other reason, Napoleon will be remembered for his tactical brilliance on the battlefield which came at a time where there were no significant military advances. Patton and Rommel were simply examples of great generals who harnessed new technology more effectively than others versus Napoleon who had nothing of significance to rely on.

Anyway, no need to get snooty and hostile, if I'm wrong I'd be much appreciated if you could point out why.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are about ten dozens of books, read one, don't expect us to do your homework assignment for you.

However, mention some shit about Patton and Rommel as Blinder bomber suggests, that will do fine.

And no BlinderBomber, just because you don't know shit about the issue, you can't just make shit up, he didn't just outthink them, he and his generals killed them all, do you know why? of course not, do you have any clue at all?

I hope you're being sarcastic. My point boiled down to: If for no other reason, Napoleon will be remembered for his tactical brilliance on the battlefield which came at a time where there were no significant military advances. Patton and Rommel were simply examples of great generals who harnessed new technology more effectively than others versus Napoleon who had nothing of significance to rely on.

Anyway, no need to get snooty and hostile, if I'm wrong I'd be much appreciated if you could point out why.

Canned Food. Seriously, that was his secret technology. It gave him a Logistical advantage.

 

[marvdmartian]

1. He took over much of the "civilized" world at his period in history, which included most of Europe and quite a bit of Asia, before his ego stopped him cold by trying to invade Russia, and stretching his supply lines too thin (thus making it easy for the Russians to counter-attack and win during the winter they were used to, and Napolean's troops were not). Funny thing is, Hitler made the same exact mistake during WW2.
2. His method of warfare was so effective that they still teach it to this day in war colleges worldwide. That says quite a lot by itself.
3. He sold the newly formed United States of America the Louisiana Purchase for a song, which led us to be a coast to coast nation. Without that purchase, it's highly likely the USA wouldn't extend much further west than the Mississippi River. Thanks to this sale, Napolean was able to continue funding his war in Europe, and Thomas Jefferson got us a piece of land that allowed further expansion westward. Didn't matter if it never really belonged to the French, it kept them from going to war over it when we likely would have eventually expanded that way anyways.

That's what I can come up with, off the cuff.

 

[CallMeJoe]

As Rommel (and his disciple, Patton) revised the concepts of mobile warfare, M. Bonaparte revolutionized the use of artillery in combat, and modernized the combat command-and-control structure, within the limits of early 18th century technology.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are about ten dozens of books, read one, don't expect us to do your homework assignment for you.

However, mention some shit about Patton and Rommel as Blinder bomber suggests, that will do fine.

And no BlinderBomber, just because you don't know shit about the issue, you can't just make shit up, he didn't just outthink them, he and his generals killed them all, do you know why? of course not, do you have any clue at all?

I hope you're being sarcastic. My point boiled down to: If for no other reason, Napoleon will be remembered for his tactical brilliance on the battlefield which came at a time where there were no significant military advances. Patton and Rommel were simply examples of great generals who harnessed new technology more effectively than others versus Napoleon who had nothing of significance to rely on.

Anyway, no need to get snooty and hostile, if I'm wrong I'd be much appreciated if you could point out why.

Canned Food. Seriously, that was his secret technology. It gave him a Logistical advantage.

Well, canned food isn't an immediate battlefield technology and, while it might have allowed Napoleon to deploy more troops relative to what he could have deployed sans canned food, it didn't give him drastic numerical superiority on its own. He owed a lot of his manpower to the spirit of the French Revolution.

... Or am I remember my Napoleonic history completely incorrectly?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
There are about ten dozens of books, read one, don't expect us to do your homework assignment for you.

However, mention some shit about Patton and Rommel as Blinder bomber suggests, that will do fine.

And no BlinderBomber, just because you don't know shit about the issue, you can't just make shit up, he didn't just outthink them, he and his generals killed them all, do you know why? of course not, do you have any clue at all?

I hope you're being sarcastic. My point boiled down to: If for no other reason, Napoleon will be remembered for his tactical brilliance on the battlefield which came at a time where there were no significant military advances. Patton and Rommel were simply examples of great generals who harnessed new technology more effectively than others versus Napoleon who had nothing of significance to rely on.

Anyway, no need to get snooty and hostile, if I'm wrong I'd be much appreciated if you could point out why.

Canned Food. Seriously, that was his secret technology. It gave him a Logistical advantage.

Canadians are bright people.

 

[ProfJohn]

From Wiki:

The Napoleonic Code, or Code Napoléon (originally called the Code civil des Français) was the French civil code, established under Napoléon I. It was drafted rapidly by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on March 21, 1804. Even though the Napoleonic code was not the first legal code to be established in a European country with a civil legal system ? it was preceded by the Codex Maximilianeus bavaricus civilis (Bavaria, 1756), the Allgemeines Landrecht (Prussia, 1792) and the West Galician Code, (Galicia, then part of Austria, 1797) ? it is considered the first successful codification[citation needed] and strongly influenced the law of many other countries. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in establishing the rule of law. Historians have called it "one of the few documents which have influenced the whole world."

His victories on a battle field live on only in books and history classes, but his law advancement really did change the world.