Is it true that he was only successful because he fought

He was successful because the French Republic managed to be worse than the monarchy

>>841418
Holy fuck, no. This best be bait. He took on all of Europe.

>Austrian Empire
>Russia
>Prussia
>the UK
>every other goddamn state in Europe
>weak

Is this a joke?

>>841426

>MUH TERROR

Except that it wasn't.

>>841452
At the time, yes, they were

>>841457
Relative to what you flaming autist?

>>842467
france

>>841418
Yes , but -
Lol isn't that what conquerors do? judge and lodge themselves as superior and then 'act' on it?
So because Europe could not get gud, and he could, doesn't that make him successful?

Did i take the bait?

>>841456
>MUH LIBURTY

Yes it was.

File: 1302842576350.jpg (59KB, 288x396px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 288x396px

when you fight for freedom, you can take on the world.

>>842530
Levee on mass or some shit idk

>>841418
He fought against the strongest nations of his time....combined
Now look at Britain who built its empire by fighting the Zulu Kingdom, the Zanzibar sultanate and Qing China, and yoi'll know what fighting weak nations mean

>>842478
How does that make them weak when they were still way above anything that wasnt France?

>>841426
Yet they won a war with EVERY single monarchy in Europe.

*worse*

>>841418
Which of these nations were weak exactly?
They were compared to him, for sure, but not in the absolute. All of europe was still leagues above everything else.

In some ways, yes. Napoleon is the greatest example of a meritocracy stomping the shit out of European militaries under monarchies that were infested with nepotism, where officers were more concerned about being gentlemen than being good at waging war.

>>841418
I hate to break it to you but the sphinx is just a statue