I've always been annoyed when people talk about Napoleon in the same breath as Hitler, Stalin, Nero, etc. So what do you think? A reformer who went a bit too far? or a ruthless power-hungry madman?
I voted evil only because he didn't do anything particularity good during his reign. he isn't a Hitler figure by any means, just someone who got caught up in a whole lot of power all of a sudden. The Mushroom Man
There were some good things that he did during his reign. He ended many of the horrors of the terror, he made peace with the church, and he made many reforms on education, banking, health and the social class. Many people in other countries he (granted) conquered greeted him as a liberator and reformer from the ultra-conservatism that governed them. -On a side note, Italy was unified under Napoleon, only to be divided up again after the Napoleonic wars. Most Italians wished for unification once again until it was finally achieved in 1861.- Let's not also forget that France was ruled by a fascist by the name of Robespierre before Napoleon and was influenced by stick-in-the-ass Metternich afterward. I can understand if one were to see him as "evil", but he did introduce some good into France- and Europe, for that matter.
Dude, he was actually kind of cool. But I voted evil because he thought he was cooler than he was in real life. Now that's evil.
Napoleon was one of those odd dictators like Caesar in the fact 1. He was a dictator which is bad, but on the flip side really wasn't a bad person per se and was loved by my of his countrymen.
Ah Caesar... such a colorful guy. And may I point out, that two of the greatest Generals in history were Italian (Napoleon being born to an Italian family in Corsica, which became a French possession a couple of years before his birth).
May I point out how beautiful Italy is? And it's not just their Prince or love of war.. Their entire country and culture exudes romance and passion. Why do I live here again?
Napoleon did a lot of harm to the various Nations of Europe as well. You will not see him talked about favourably by Spanish or Portugeuse historians. You mentioned his unifying of Italy and of him being treated as a liberator by some nations, but to most he was a tyrant who conquered and then placed ineffectual and corrupt members on their vacant thrones. His army stole and raped it's way across spain during the Penninsular War and his action in Russia were little better. He was a ruthless power mad and a tyranical dictator, these are not redeeming features.
I just wish to hear your argument for calling this tyrant "awesome". There are a number of european nations that would disagree with that description of him. So curious to hear why you feel that he is.
Why must we judge him as absolutely good or evil? In my opinion the OP already hits it pretty good on the head with this: He was a bit of both. But indeed in a different way as a Stalin or Hitler. Who are more righteous to be named in one breath and also more easily to be called evil and/or deluded.