I'm not an expert, but I don't think so. An emperor isn't necessarily a dictator.
After the French Revolution which overthrew the monarchy, Robespierre essentially became a dictator and led the nearly year long "reign of terror". Napoleon and his allies overthrew the French Directory government and created the French Consulate. He brought political stability to a land torn by revolution and war. He created a civil code that advocated for many liberal policies, such as the abolition of feudalism, the freedom of religion, and the creation of a central bank.
The French adored him and voted overwhelmingly for him as emperor.
It is safe to say that Napoleon was not a democrat, but as the historian explains, he was not a dictator either. Moreover, there were counter-powers, which were admittedly rather weak during Napoleon's reign of power, but it was these counter-powers that forced Napoleon to abdicate in 1815.
Not a dictator, but certainly a wannabe conqueror warlord type. He would have been a dictator if he succeeded in permanently widening France’s borders before he died.
A person who could have brought great change to France and entered into a peaceful internal rebuilding of the republic, however he took the aggressive route and as they say, met his waterloo.
Yes I read it, a good question, some accurate some not so. One of the reasons around the unification of Germany was the Prussians needing the full might of Germany to balance against Poland and Russia. The Greater Poland uprising and the pretty much defeat of Prussia by the French and Poles, did not go down well in Prussia. The British have always viewed the Russians as an enemy, the great game was how most of it was played out. Both the French and British were very quick to get involved with the Crimean war.
No they haven't always considered the Russians as an enemy, that's not how geopolitics works, there are no eternal allies or enemies in geopolitics, only interests are.
You can see from these statements that Napoleon didn't want the world. Which wouldn't even make sense.
You seem to be mentioning things here that Napoleon doesn't mention in the texts I mentioned.
Right... he wasn't a tyrant and a dictator. Uh huh. Whatever his "good qualities" were, I stand by my statement: "He was a narcissistic little shit". By little, I don't mean short. The myth that he was barely over 5 feet tall has been debunked for a long time. Historians now believe he was about 5'6 or 5'7", which was tall enough for his day. Next thing you're going to try and sell me is what - how great George Washington was?
Do you know how read books? Go blow this snow at the DOZENS of historians who have written about him. I'm not wasting my time arguing about whether or not an authoritarian military regime was "technically" a dictatorship, nor do I care. Have a good night.
No, the problem is that you want to argue over technicalities and I don't. Your exchanges with historians have not changed your mind, and your explanations will not change mine. Therefore, while I'm perfectly ABLE to explain my viewpoint, I don't care to debate with you! I answered your post's question. Yes, hell yes, I consider him a dictator and I already told you why. So again, have a good night.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
m 
