I've finally realized how amazing Napoleon was.
When did you realize he really was the most exceptional man that ever lived?
Reading and watching things about him. Then you compare him to other leaders at the time and then the world leaders of today. That's when I realized why he's up there with the greatist leaders in history.
The reason Napoleon is so idolized is because he came on the scene exactly when the new generations of young intellectuals were turning away from God and needed a new idol to take Christ's place.
Russia, Prussia and Austria were just major frog enablers. If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.
Because if Communism is ever going to work it has to follow the Trotsky method i.e. don't ever stop working to improve things, the revolution is never over, always look inwards etc.
Stalin and every other Marxist just got lazy and complacent/content with the power they have, thus corrupting them. Trotsky knew you couldn't let that happen.
So how tall was he actually? Let's end the controversy.
Killed feudalism, quickstarted the age of european colonization in Africa ans Asia (and decolonization when it comes to Latin America), set the basis of nationalism (especially in Germany and Italy by uniting the many states within common rule), created the Napoleonic Code with is still the basis for most legal systems in the world (pic related)
Napoleon was kind of like George Lucas, Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson, maybe James Cameron depending on how the sequel to Prometheus turns out. Their early work was great but years later it was just a mess. Living in opulent splendor made him decadent and corrupt, he lost that earlier drive when he was a pleb trying to make it, when if he didn't utterly dedicate himself he would get his shit fucked up.
Reminds me of Griffith when Guts switched up on him.
But anon, Napoléon kept cheating on her all the time. Hell, he didn't even lost time : As soon as in Italy, he fuggg the Grassini, the "prettiest woman in Italy". He fuggg in Egypt, then he fuggg in Germany, and he fuggg a polish actress.
He even divorced Joséphine to marry an Austrian princess afterwards. He may have loved her, this much is very true, but this didn't prevent him to have other people warming his bed.
>He even divorced Joséphine to marry an Austrian princess afterwards.
That's only because she was infertile and Napoleon needed an heir, though. And also an attempt to get peace with Austria.
You are basically talking about the Masonic/Jewish connection to Napoleon. Napoleon, like Cromwell and Caesar before him, was financed by Jewish bankers, who had geopolitical motivations for doing so.
The Enlightenment basically started in England. You had Francis Bacon, John Dee, and the Royal Institute which were the precursors to outright Freemasonry—which realistically went all the way back to Francis Walsingham's spy ring during Elizabeth's reign. The Enlightenment, contrary to public perception, was never about objective science; indeed, Newton was more of an alchemist than a mathematician. If was always about the sectarian conflict that was started by the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Church was the enemy that united Protestants, Jewish bankers, Freemasonry, and esoteric studies (based off of the kabbalah).
The Bourbon Dynasty (the French monarchy) was the target of many Masonic/Jewish intrigues. After James II was disposed of by William III of Orange, Catholicism was dead in England. Napoleon was in actuality a philo-Semite revolutionary, even going so far as to call a Sanhedrin in 1806, pandering to Jewish interests. Napoleon was a Freemason, himself, and he was attempting to spread their subversive ideology across Europe, undermining the only force that ever stood up to Jewish influence effectively, the Catholic Church. He was almost certainly a useful idiot in many regards, and his autobiography shows a distinct lack of understanding of his geopolitical environment.
Continued in part II:
Freemasonry essentially has no centralized structure. What was meant to be subversive to France, was not allowed to destroy England. The lodges in Belgium and the Netherlands (and in Germany, if you buy the Illuminati theory) were the dispensers of such subversion as Voltaire. These ideas of equality and fraternity could not and, indeed, never could be realized in reality, as the totalitarian leadership that supplanted monarchism clearly elucidates. The Jacobinic Revolution was an English and Jewish plot at its core, and it was never meant to provide the French with freedom, but rather destroy Catholic hegemony in Europe, and shift power to the Whigs and Jews (who realistically are near the same thing, due to intermarriage and shared interests).
>The Jacobinic Revolution was an English and Jewish plot at its core, and it was never meant to provide the French with freedom, but rather destroy Catholic hegemony in Europe, and shift power to the Whigs and Jews (who realistically are near the same thing, due to intermarriage and shared interests).
Yes, this is why England fought for two decades trying to put back a catholic Bourbon in power in France, and overall opposed the revolution everywhere.
>And also an attempt to get peace with Austria.
Napoleon did so much for peace when you think about it
It's a shame that he's remembered as a warmonger by normies who don't even bother looking at who declared war first in the wars that lead to his conquests
Mostly E. Michael Jones's The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. It's long, bit it's good and uses Judaic sources, primarily. He is an academic conspiracy theorist.
All of these events coincided with the Enlightenment, which at its core was Freemasonry. You have to remember that almost all of the founding fathers were Freemasons, and the American Revolution ran concurrently to the Enlightenment, and especially close to the French Revolution. Thomas Paine was basically the Voltaire of America. The whole movement was a Whig alliance with Jewish finance. I don't believe all Freemasonry is a conspiracy (I don't think the founding fathers had any ill-will in mind, for example), but rather it is a veil for Jewish finance.
As for you saying they tried to restore Catholicism, I doubt that is true, at least not actually. The Protestant Reformation and the Counter-Reformation was an ongoing debacle for the majority of England's Protestant existence. From the Irish Catholics that Oliver Cromwell suppressed and the wars against Philip II of Spain, you will have to do more than that to convince me of a Protestant love of Catholicism.
The Catholic Church formed an intelligentsia that were largely Jew aware. Going all the way back to the 1230s, a man by the name of Nicholas Donin revealed the Talmud to the pope, showing the subversive nature of their "religion." The Protestant Reformation was basically Jewish money financing a schism from the Catholic Church, and it is hilarious there are still people who don't think the expulsion from Spain—and the Inquisition prior to it—had nothing to do with the nascent Protestant movement. As a matter of fact, many Jewish authors admit that the bibles being printed in Belgium and the Netherlands were outright printed by Jewish owned presses—just recently designed.
So basically what happened was: the Church cracked down on Jews; the Jews financed Protestantism; the new English elite aligned themselves with the Jews after stealing church property (think Thomas Cromwell); and you have a back and forth between Catholicism and Protestantism culminating in Freemasonry, which is largely based off of the Jewish Cabala in imagery and concepts.
recently reading a book on him, hated him because he was arrogant and shit (plus i'm British). Now i'm only 100 pages (just finished the sige of Mantua) in and I think he's one of the greatest people to have lived.
angry anglo detected
go on, tell us how wellington single handedly won all of the napoleonic wars combined and how the Peninsular War was second only to Waterloo in toppling Napoleon's evil empire
Nigger what the fuck are you talking about. He literally said how is perception had changed once he read the book, but no you didn't read his sentence because you're so far above him aren't you?
>1. An extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel ruler.
By what measure? He was extremely progressive for the day; he encouraged freedom of religion and outlawed Jewish persecution. He built hospitals, street lighting, roads, printing presses and general sanitation in all the countries he conquered. He founded schools and universities, and he centralised banking and government. He had more wars declared on him than he declared on others.
The reason Big N was so succesful is simply the amount of manpower of France that was desperate for a place in this world. In the decades prior to the revolution and the rise of Napoleon, the population in France was exploding, and the economy couldn't support their longing for the legendary French lifestyle. Napoleon was a genius, but would have failed under different circumstances.
That would be true if Napoleonic France owed its victories to big manpower like Soviet Russia or the Ottoman Empire, but in all of his greatest battles Napoleon was outnumbered
>You wouldn't be surprised if a young army beats a couple of seniors.
Thats not true, all the elite units were based off older veterans. One of the main reasons Napoleon lost at Waterloo was because he had to conscript young (and under-trained) soldiers after the catastrophe that was the Russian invasion.
How does pic related compare to Napoleon I?
He'll never be as good as the original, but I'd say he's a fair successor. Pretty based fellow, gave the French their guaranteed right to vote, made Paris not a total shithole, built a modernized navy (which in turn encouraged the brits), did quite a bit for the poor, and unified Italy (which got them Savoy).
He's horribly underrated and criticized by dirty republican nigger traitors because of a war that he never even wanted to enter
I'm pretty sure that is a myth. It was more the Enlightenment rhetoric spiraled out of control culminating in an outright revolution (that may or may not have been financed and abetted by Freemasons).
>the most exceptional man that ever lived
I do believe you're forgetting someone.
> Enlightenment rhetoric spiraled out of control culminating in an outright revolution
Cause we all forgot how literate France was at the time. That's enough shitposting for the day anon.
Napoleon was a loser, but lucky loser because Russian Empire was peaceful. In case Russian Empire at time of Napoleon was full of Chechens they just grab lands of France and name it Chechence, and make all people of France dead or serfes talking only at Chechen language.
>he doesn't know that Napoleon's rise to power did not coincide with the french revolution.
Casual reminder that we share the board with people like this and that they think their opinion is worth as much as ours.
>When did you realize he really was the most exceptional man that ever lived?
napoleon total war was the initial catalyst to be honest; it made me want to now more about a period i didn't care very much since i didn't have much information about the subject - after a few years reading everything i could find about that time period i came to understand that napoleon was indeed the most successful human being that ever lived.
it was the perfect mix between potential, skill, luck and oportunity
in other words: the perfect man for the perfect job assembled by the perfect storm
>He surrounded himself with guards that where exceptionally tall, therefore he appeared small
the average height for the old guard was 1.80m and the minimum height to enter (the grenadier unit) was around 1.75m
the "meme" started by the english who called him "little corporal" - which was the nickname his men gave him due to the familiarity he had with them - needless to say the english used this familar tone to mock him and used this "title" literally in their caricatures and propaganda
they also refused to use the metric system, drive on the right lane and adopted inbredism as their political ideology since muh ghost of napoleon
that's the worst nightmare a son/daughter can have: to have a idolized father/mother that was the best in what he did and yet you choose to follow his path.
>pic related: why even bother?
>When did you realize he really was the most exceptional man that ever lived?
After reading Robert Skidelsky's biography of the man, simply titled 'Oswald Mosley'
Napoleon one of the greatest leaders of Europeo ever.
He modernized all europe under his control in different ways,starting from the civil code.
Even the expedition in Egypt was glorious under scientific prospective ,he found the rosetta stone
School reform,monetary reform.
He made lot of things....he had a vision, and europe lost a great man,IT took a fucking big coalition to defeat him .
>If you want something done right, you gotta do it yourself.
I see you conveniently hid the numbers
Are you Russian or German?
>The Enlightenment basically started in England
When did Voltaire, Rousseau, and Kant become English?
Neither. I just wanted to include the picture. My point was that Anglos act as if they did all the work fighting Napoleon when they actually made other countries (namely Prussia) do most of the fighting.
>When did Voltaire, Rousseau, and Kant become English?
All subversive according to Catholic decree. All of their rhetoric was imported from England. You really think a movement just happened to pop up in France and take out Catholic hegemony? Nothing just happens in politics—never.
>WE WUZ ENLIGHTENMENT THINKERS
"In the mid-18th century, Paris became the center of an explosion of philosophic and scientific activity challenging traditional doctrines and dogmas. The philosophic movement was led by Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued for a society based upon reason rather than faith and Catholic doctrine, for a new civil order based on natural law, and for science based on experiments and observation. The political philosopher Montesquieu introduced the idea of a separation of powers in a government, a concept which was enthusiastically adopted by the authors of the United States Constitution."
Enlightenment thinking went back to the Royal Institute and Freemasonry. Freemasonry and the "Enlightenment" are the same thing. The Bourbon Dynasty didn't just let English propaganda like Voltaire and Rousseau through the front door. Rather, it was all done surreptitiously via Beligian and Dutch lodges.
she even brought her lover along with her to italy after refusing to see him for months during his first major campaign, no one had the heart to tell him though, when he found out in egypt he took a mistress imediately, it was worse to be a cuckee rather then doing the cucking for a general in society at the time.
>He do not conquer England, do not conquer fertile Africa, and did attempt conquer snow desert of North Eurasia.
You are wrong on every account there
He built a fleet of flat-bottomed boats and made several invasion plans that were never realised
He conquered Egypt and almost Syria before returning to become first consul after the revolution
His goal was never to conquer, just to get Tsar Alexander to get back in his continental system
I don't know if I should laugh or hang myself.