Napoleon wasn't that barbaric

[Geromekevin]

In Leos recent blog video "Rethinking Human History" Leo says that the world history has been shaped by the most ruthless, egotistical and bloodthirsty people.

I wondered and researched. One interesting thing I found was that Napoleon was against torture, which is a pretty advanced world view for that time.
 

Quote

"The barbarous custom of having men beaten who are suspected of having important secrets to reveal must be abolished. It has always been recognized that this way of interrogating men, by putting them to torture, produces nothing worthwhile. The poor wretches say anything that comes into their mind and what they think the interrogator wishes to know." - Napoleon Bonaparte

Thought this was interesting and that I'd share it with you.

[Apparition of Jack]

Barack Obama pushed for increasing healthcare coverage to Americans, whilst also drone-striking people at weddings. Barbaric is relative.

[Scholar]

3 hours ago, Geromekevin said:

In Leos recent blog video "Rethinking Human History" Leo says that the world history has been shaped by the most ruthless, egotistical and bloodthirsty people.

I wondered and researched. One interesting thing I found was that Napoleon was against torture, which is a pretty advanced world view for that time.
 

Thought this was interesting and that I'd share it with you.

 

Give that a listen. Especially the part when Napeleon exterminated an entire village just because he was frustrated.

 

Hitler established animal welfare regulations, like requiring breaks for the transportation of pigs. There was also this prominent figure who didn't like when soldiers would treat the jews badly before executing them.

That hardly makes them saints.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Aeris]

he was one of the most conscious dictator, even my history teacher agreed ( in the back of the teaching class )

yes he was great, "but you know...:D " 
he write civil code, and try to create a really conscious french society.

his shadow : he wanted to much control over the world,

especially the russian thing, totaly unconscious thinking.

I would bet it is what happen when you push to much the warrior subconscious archetype.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Aeris

[Ibn Sina]

I think 'Barbaric' should be a term reserved to Huns, Goths, Vikings, or Mongols.

Napoleon was not barbaric. He was a genius who did what was right for France (at the time).

He was an avid reader, a good writer and strategist. Would you call Augustus Caesar barbaric? There's a difference.

[Scholar]

Just now, Ibn Sina said:

I think 'Barbaric' should be a term reserved to Huns, Goths, Vikings, or Mongols.

Napoleon was not barbaric. He was a genius who did what was right for France (at the time).

He was an avid reader, a good writer and strategist. Would you call Augustus Caesar barbaric? There's a difference.

I think any historian would call Agustus Caesar barbaric, in the common sense of the word.

By the way you are arguing, you could say Hitler just did what was best for Germany. The only difference would be that Hitler failed while Napoleon had some temporary success.

[Ibn Sina]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

By the way you are arguing, you could say Hitler just did what was best for Germany.

Don't compare Hitler with Napoleon just because both did what was best for their country. Hitler killed innocent people, Napoleon defeated his enemies (the entire europe) against all odds ( I am not strictly speaking). There's a difference.

 

4 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think any historian would call Agustus Caesar barbaric

In the roman times, the romans considered barbarians the goths, the huns etc who were outside the empire.  I don't think historians would equate Augustus with the Goths.

[Scholar]

7 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Don't compare Hitler with Napoleon just because both did what was best for their country. Hitler killed innocent people, Napoleon defeated his enemies (the entire europe) against all odds ( I am not strictly speaking). There's a difference.

 

In the roman times, the romans considered barbarians the goths, the huns etc who were outside the empire.  I don't think historians would equate Augustus with the Goths.

Napoleon destroyed entire villiages of innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, who were completely neutral, and from whoms destruction he gained no strategic advantage at all. He killed thousands of people because he felt like it. I think you really need to read up on Napoleon, the guy was a narssicistic maniac. Sure, he was also a strategic genius and fought for france, but in what world is that a justification for murdering innocent people, conquering and invading countries etc.?

Napoleon is highly romanticized.

 

Noone here is using barbaric as a description of Goths. I think you know what we mean when we say barbaric here.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Ibn Sina]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Napoleon destroyed entire villiages of innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, who were completely neutral, and from whoms destruction he gained no strategic advantage at all. He killed thousands of people because he felt like it. I think you really need to read up on Napoleon, the guy was a narssicistic maniac.

There's no war where innocents didn't die or effected in some way. War is always nasty. But There's a difference between innocents being killed as a consequence of war and innocents being killled the way Hitler and Pol pot did. I have done a lot of reading of Napoleon, from the time I was 13 and still I read him time to time. And from my years of reading and admiring him, there is nothing to doubt that he was a great man. There is no such thing as being a saint in war, whose objective is to not kill innocents instead of winning the war. But there's a difference between such killings and concentration camps.

May be you should tell me what sources you read that made you say he was a narcisstic maniac.

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think you know what we mean when we say barbaric here.

Goths were considered barbarians ( there is even a series called Barbarians which covers goths, vandals, vikings etc 

)  so I am thinking of them as barbaric. I am saying it in that sense. Like savages with no rules, no order, just pillaging. 
Sure, barbaric can also be used for people like Hitler, but I wouldn't say Hitler was a barbarian. 

[Scholar]

2 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

May be you should tell me what sources you read that made you say he was a narcisstic maniac.

Watch the video I posted above, about Napoleon's greatest foe. You can then research the names of the villages he mentions to verify it for yourself.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Ibn Sina]

1 minute ago, Scholar said:

Watch the video I posted above, about Napoleon's greatest foe. You can then research the names of the villages he mentions to verify it for yourself.

LOL you are citing Lindybiege as a credible source to talk about Napoleon? First of all I have already watched that vid, second he is a youtuber who is openly biased against Napoleon and part of it is to entertain his audience, it's not an authorized credible source to get education from. You are watching these entertainment videos and forming opinions about Napoleon. And I was thinking you have done some real serious research about Napoleon.

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

LOL you are citing Lindybiege as a credible source to talk about Napoleon? First of all I have already watched that vid, second he is a youtuber who is openly biased against Napoleon and part of it is to entertain his audience, it's not an authorized credible source to get education from. You are watching these entertainment videos and forming opinions about Napoleon. And I was thinking you have done some real serious research about Napoleon.

So what did he say in the video that was unfactual?

[Ibn Sina]

3 minutes ago, Scholar said:

So what did he say in the video that was unfactual?

Tooooo many unfactual things, I will tell you later next week may be, I don't have time, just keep in touch with this thread.

Every single time he is criticizing napoleon, there is a mixture of falsehood + biasness + half truths and lies. Ofcourse he is not being 100% serious and his purpose is not to impart  education like in a university lecture, it is for entertainment, it is for inciting that english vs french rivalry that people love to watch and hear about.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Scholar]

15 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

Tooooo many unfactual things, I will tell you later next week may be, I don't have time, just keep in touch with this thread.

Every single time he is criticizing napoleon, there is a mixture of falsehood + biasness + half truths and lies.

Alright, I have not done too much research into it so you could be right. I think the entire point Leo was making was that this attitude of war and exploitation is so normalized that we don't even look at it like it was particulary egotistical. "Oh Napoleon just fought for france, he was just good at his job! And besides he did so many good things for france!"

This entire attitude is a result of completely blatant self-bias. How could Napoleon have done what he did if he had not been ruthless? It's not like Napoleon stayed in france and defended it from foreign invasions. He was the conqueror. To be imperialistic you have to be egotistical.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Ibn Sina]

11 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think the entire point Leo was making was that this attitude of war and exploitation is so normalized that we don't even look at it like it was particulary egotistical. "Oh Napoleon just fought for france, he was just good at his job! And besides he did so many good things for france!"

This entire attitude is a result of completely blatant self-bias. How could Napoleon have done what he did if he had not been ruthless? It's not like Napoleon stayed in france and defended it from foreign invasions. He was the conqueror. To be imperialistic you have to be egotistical.

And here you are 100% correct. Napoleon was not like a fairy tale hero, he was not  a good all saint, he was a ruthless person. But our goal here is to be realistic and see him who he really is. Sure there are Romantics who think Napoleon as a demi god the greatest human ever alive with no flaws. Every human has flaws, but we need to ( or try to) correctly assess who he really was (an extraordinary human being with flaws) . Let's say if you were a historical figure, then I wouldn't want to read a romanticized version of you where u are potrayed as someone without any flaws, or a heavily satirized version of you, these are all distortions. Our job is to look at the figure with his entirety, his good and bad qualities and judge him accordingly, just like we wouldn't say that our friend is completely flawless he has his qualities, many good , some bad, like wise we have to make an assessment of a historical figure.

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Scholar]

20 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

And here you are 100% correct. Napoleon was not like a fairy tale hero, he was not  a good all saint, he was a ruthless person. But our goal here is to be realistic and see him who he really is. Sure there are Romantics who think Napoleon as a demi god the greatest human ever alive with no flaws. Every human has flaws, but we need to ( or try to) correctly assess who he really was (an extraordinary human being with flaws) . Let's say if you were a historical figure, then I wouldn't want to read a romanticized version of you where u are potrayed as someone without any flaws, or a heavily satirized version of you, these are all distortions. Our job is to look at the figure with his entirety, his good and bad qualities and judge him accordingly, just like we wouldn't say that our friend is completely flawless he has his qualities, many good , some bad, like wise we have to make an assessment of a historical figure.

Yes but I don't think we also should just relativize everything to a point where everyone is basically just a person with some flaws.

I would state that Napoleon and people like him were exceptionally egotistical and ruthless, otherwise they could have not assumed the positions of power they did. If I for example would compare Napoleon to Marcus Aurelius, I would say Marcus was definitely less egoic than him. But even he was embedded in a culture of imperialism.

When you ask the people who had to live with the consequences of what Napoleon did and what Hitler did, you will probably get very similar responses. This is even true in contemporary contexts, where the imperialism of the US in the middle east is viewed as pure evil by those who are effected by it.

Sure Hilter was more ruthless, but he also existed in a different historical context. We have to recognize that both of them were basically pure evil in the eyes of those who suffered greatly as a result of their conduct.

 

Would you ever argue that a person who rapes children but also runs a non-profit charity that cures cancer is a person with some flaws?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Ibn Sina]

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes but I don't think we also should just relativize everything to a point where everyone is basically just a person with some flaws

My point is making the most correct assessment of the character of a historical person based on historical data as much as possible, and not be manipulated by positive or negative distortion. I am not generalizing everything into ' person with some flaws', but emphasizing on making the most correct assessment as possible.

 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Scholar]

3 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

My point is making the most correct assessment of the character of a historical person based on historical data as much as possible, and not be manipulated by positive or negative distortion. I am not generalizing everything into ' person with some flaws', but emphasizing on making the most correct assessment as possible.

 

Yes but then would you not agree that Napoleon was exceptionally ruthless and egotistical?

Edited August 28, 2019 by Scholar

[Ibn Sina]

13 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Yes but then would you not agree that Napoleon was ruthless and egotistical?

I would. But still I would say he was a man of greatness, as Hegel the great german philosopher put it "A world Spirit", an extraordinary human being whose very name brings chills down my spine. Definitely one of my top 5 human beings ever, whose match I haven't seen for over a thousand years of human history. I am deeply in love with him. Not at all to be compared with Hitler.

But it's complex. Humans are complex. The world is complex. War is complex. Being egotistical and ruthless doesn't immediately equate to being a lesser man , you can't say Napoleon was a lesser man just because of this one or 2 quality, but you will have to analyze him in his entirety. I have read about many kings, monarchs, made comparisons, looking at what monarchs are generally like, what Napoleon was like, contrast , compare, where Napoleon fits in the broader context of human history.

That is why with less knowledge it is easy to propagandize people and make them hate or love someone. But humans are complex. If you read Hitler biography, then chances are you will find that even he had admiring qualities.

 Sure if I was a villager in Napoleon's time and he destroyed my family I would think of him as a tyrant and a cruel person and have negativity towards him. But we have to analyze like a student of history, not a villager in napoleonic era, not a patriotic englishman. But a student of history in general. 

Edited August 28, 2019 by Ibn Sina

[Scholar]

45 minutes ago, Ibn Sina said:

I would. But still I would say he was a man of greatness, as Hegel the great german philosopher put it "A world Spirit", an extraordinary human being whose very name brings chills down my spine. Definitely one of my top 5 human beings ever, whose match I haven't seen for over a thousand years of human history. I am deeply in love with him. Not at all to be compared with Hitler.

But it's complex. Humans are complex. The world is complex. War is complex. Being egotistical and ruthless doesn't immediately equate to being a lesser man , you can't say Napoleon was a lesser man just because of this one or 2 quality, but you will have to analyze him in his entirety. I have read about many kings, monarchs, made comparisons, looking at what monarchs are generally like, what Napoleon was like, contrast , compare, where Napoleon fits in the broader context of human history.

That is why with less knowledge it is easy to propagandize people and make them hate or love someone. But humans are complex. If you read Hitler biography, then chances are you will find that even he had admiring qualities.

 Sure if I was a villager in Napoleon's time and he destroyed my family I would think of him as a tyrant and a cruel person and have negativity towards him. But we have to analyze like a student of history, not a villager in napoleonic era, not a patriotic englishman. But a student of history in general. 

I have stopped to admire people for their grand achievements, I don't see anything special in Napoleon other than unfortunate genetics that allowed him to accomplish his egotistical needs.

Someone who has the capacity to spare a creature like a spider despite fearing it to me is more admirable than Napoleon could have ever been, even if he conquered the entire world. I wonder how you would have talked about Hilter if he did succeed in creating the Third Reich. What if the world indeed would be better off without the jews? Would you then be sitting here and arguing for why Hilter had admiring qualities despite his relative cruelness?

I could list a hundred people who I find far more extraoridnary than Napoleon. What you value, what you find extraoridnary and admirable, depends on your level of consciousness. Do you think Jesus would have listed Napoleon in his top 5 human beings ever?

 

To me it seems like you are very biased towards Napoleon because you are attached to him. Especially because you have been reading about him from such a young age, it is likely that you have attached your identity to him.