Many people talk about Napoleon solely in terms of his military record. But his political work in France is enormous
As historian Thierry Lentz wrote
" From him we have also inherited the general principles of the State, its administration, public finances (although his tax system was less omnipresent and complex than today's, with less than 15% of compulsory levies), the organisation of the judiciary, the network of chambers of commerce and agriculture, the aggregation of teachers into a single body, and the pre-eminence of jus soli in matters of nationality. High school students still dream of his baccalaureate and the not-so-young wear his Légion d'honneur or Palmes académiques. Even more prosaically, we owe him the creation of the Paris fire brigade, the inter-nat system of hospitals, the first mass vaccinations (against smallpox), street numbering, the obligation to sweep in front of one's door or to bury our dead six feet underground.
Its institutional solutions have been adopted by many countries. Its centralisation has helped to combat feudalism everywhere. Its Council of State has been copied worldwide. Its Civil Code was in force and still inspires the legislation of many countries, in Europe and around the world (Haiti, Uruguay, Argentina and, for a time, Japan). Today's China draws inspiration from it (or pretends to) for its own codification by including French civil law experts in its think tanks. "
I can't even list all the reforms he's made because it's beyond the character limit.
Have there been many people in history who have had both military genius and a political legacy like Napoléon?
Honestly? Let's say I dislike the idea to see history romanticized, let's say you forgot, unintentionally, to talk about a more complete picture, so:
American historian Paul Schroeder (1927–2020) is willing to grant that Napoleon was a genius regarding "military, administrative, organizational, political, even literary [efforts] ... [with] an extraordinary capacity for planning, decision making, memory, work, mastery of detail, and leadership." The problem is that he used this genius for __criminal ends__
British military historian Correlli Barnett calls him "a social misfit" who exploited France for his personal megalomaniac goals. He says Napoleon's reputation is exaggerated.
historian Victor Davis Hanson writes, "After all, the military record is unquestioned—17 years of wars, perhaps six million Europeans dead, France bankrupt, her overseas colonies lost."
Now I assure you I truly like romance a lot, in my relationships, in my life even. Just not when talking about history. Especially not when I suspect someone wants to use history for nostalgia, for a very questionable form of:
I don't know for you, but I see how nostalgia is used in 2025: "Make America Great Again".
This questionable form of nostalgia is rising in our country as well, in France, in EU even, since a few decades. It doesn't make me happy. Does it make you happy, Julie?
First of all, Hanson's arguments are without nuance. I recommend the Napoleonic War, a book by Alexander Mikaberidze , I would like to add that I never wrote that it was better before.
I don't believe in the very concept of political heroes lol, I view flesh, bones and a particularly invasive thirst for power instead. About Intellectuals, I liove the thoughts of a lot of dead guys at this point, trying in chronological order somewhat:
Buddha Socrates Epicurus Diogenes (of Sinope) Jesus Karl Marx Max Weber Sigmund Freud Pierre-Joseph Proudhon Simone de Beauvoir Jean-Paul Sartre Albert Camus André Breton Jacques Lacan Pierre Bourdieu
I was expecting this somewhat dishonest response 😅 but you have to admit that the results of their ideologies on a human level are more than dubious.
And Napoleon is not solely responsible for the wars, in reality when you look at the actions of the Russians, English etc you see that Napoleon was within the norm of the time.
Dishonest where? You just compared intellectuals, that is, thoughts, letters, pages of books with a guy manipulating lives and sufferings of people. Tu as un sacré culot de mélanger les responsabilités individuelles ici, ça ou un sacré trou dans l'empathie aussi.
My point is to show how you used History to portray one side of Napoleon only, now the second side is there, above. Now it looks really like History, instead of romance.
What you said sounds more like romance than history. What's more, the historians you quoted didn't back up their statements. In other words, it's worthless.
Intellectuals have allowed murderous ideologies to be born, or have supported these murderous ideologies or mass murderers. You don't pull the trigger but you provide the weapon or justify the action.
Historians didn't wait for your post on a random platform to work on this topic, they don't need to report to Julie07, if you're interested you'll look up their statements lol
And historians have not waited for your opinion to be nuanced on Napoleon and the most recent studies on this subject are critical of many historians past on Napoleon.
Then keep your contempt for you. Arrêter de faire cette réponse. Your opinion is not more important than mine or anyone else's. So what is your point with your half-baked thinking?
You may have a particularly high opinion of yourself when dismissing so fast the work of people, maybe you want to be another Napoleon and orchestrate everything on your own and on your terms. Except that your opinion or mine has no value at all in the context of history, the value is in the hands of Historians as a collective, tu craches dans la soupe.
Except that Hanson is not known for his research on Napoleon, so don't be ridiculous. Moreover, it is clear from your answers that you have not read many specialists on Napoleon. Therefore it is you who despise the work of historians. Or maybe you have read historians whose work has been criticised by the most recent studies.
It is you who seem to give importance to your opinion, and to diminish that of others.
Obviously on this site, you seem to be the one who has an answer for everything, I admire that.
Again, you insist in telling me that you're able or that I'm unable to assess whose work is valuable and whose not. Without any legitimacy to do so. Because GaG is not an academy. So, again, my point is to at least balance things here, you brought this enthusiastic idea of Napoleon, I brought the idea that Napoleon is something else than what you said. Job's done already.
Show me your library of the specialists you've read on Napoleon and I'll show you mine.
What's more, all you've done is quote passages where the historians quoted express an opinion rather than historical fact. What's more, you quoted a non-expert on the period. Consequently there is no balance in what you have said.
It has reformed in depth and created institutions or laws that have been copied by different countries around the world.
As for the rest, it's not true, he didn't abandon his brother, he fought in the Spanish war, won the battles, and then left again, but his brother was too weak to maintain Spain.
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 
