Was napoleon bonaparte a good man or bad man?

Answer 1

It depends entirely on your point of view. I am British, to me Napoleon is a hero, despite his opposition to my country. He is a great leader. A great general, perhaps the greatest of modern times. But of course the British at the time will label him as a Tyrant....

Answer 2

Is it possible that he was a heroic tyrant Or a tyrannical hero. The difference between good guys and bad guys is a close call on the playing field and in the history book. He was often seen as a man with numerous virtues and many faults and it often depends on various personal prejudices as to where he ranks.

Answer 3

Here are the few things:

1. For one, he was the general who keeps on winning. And in any war effort, winning battles will always make you look good. And Napoleon won A-LOT! He pretty much goes undefeated up until Russia (Battle of Trafalgar doesn't count, caz Napoleon didn't direct that battle, which frankly I hope he did, and the lose in spain is the same situation, once Napoleon was in, they all got beat up). So he is the very definition of war hero up until the end of his military career. This is one of the main reason why he is the hero fo French,

2. Secondly he was a revolutionary, and more importantly he isn't a pure revolutionary like the Jacobin, he does what he does to please the French people, and only the french people. For example he allows the nobles and the church state back in France after he was crowned emperor, but they have no power and right over the rest of the people. And this flies well with the French people who despite pushed out Church's, were still in heart Catholic.

3. He was not only a hero to French, he was a hero to Italians, he was hero to Egyptians, and he was somewhat a hero to Poland. He freed the italians stats from Austria whom at the time ruled Italy with iron hand. Napoleon drove Austrians away and he ordered his soldiers not to plunder and pillage.which in itself is a heck lot better than Austrian army did. He eliminated the Holy Roman Empire and helped germanic states to built the Federation of the Ryen (I think that's how you spell it :P) allow them to have their own version of liberal and essentially made Germany.

4. He was a hero to the government because during his time as general, his campaign kept government financially stable (somewhat, those guys really suck at economy). When royalists tried to overtook the french revolutionary government. Napoleon lead 6000 men, against 30000 I believe, and defended the government and drove away the royalist, essentially saved everyone on the council.

* read this on yahoo answers.

Answer 4

Depends on ones definition of both. He was a man of his time who wielded political power in a time when brutality was hidden in the undercurrents of dignified society. He institated many reforms that improved life for the people of Europe in general and his political work helped shape Polish and German nationalism that led to the eventual formation of the two independent states. He was responsible also for the murder of political opponents and supported brutal reprisals on rebels in Spain and Egypt. The way that a normal person is judged he would probably be classified as a villain but men/women in power can't be judged in the same way as normal people.
Many people have been trying to find the answer to this question. However, there is no correct answer. It only depends on your point of view. The critics of him say he was just another dictator and a tyrant, but others consider him as a hero.

Well, in my opinion he was definitely a hero. When he came to power, the situation in France was really bad. He had to do revolutionary changes in order to change it. He developed the Code Napoleon (which is still particularly in use), established a national bank, set up a new tax system, signed treaties with former enemies of France... These reforms and the victories he achieve (he fought armies bigger than his) are significant and by them he became a great figure in French history.

On the other hand, some people think he was a tyrant. Of course, he was a dictator and ruled alone (the other two consuls just advised him). There were also aspects that may have led him to act like that, for example his strict mother, troubles with his height or Italian accent. It is true that many people died during his wars (450 000 troops died only during the invasion of Russia), but did he want and expect that? I don't think so.

Answer 5

The terms are not exclusive, a ruler can be both totalitarian and authoritarian. As for Napoleon, he was undoubtedly authoritarian since authoritarianism concentrates all power with one person, which was true of French Empire under Napoleon. However, it is unclear whether Napoleon could be considered totalitarian since he lacked the infrastructure required to have complete and total control over all goings on in the French Empire.

Answer 6

It is very difficult to say whether he was good or bad, because it is not practically possible to give an absolute definition of "goodness" or "badness" of a human being.

He was endowed with qualities and flaws like any other man.

But the exceptional coincidence of his genius and circumstances increased the importance of both quality and defects far beyond the normal limits.

He probably had more power than any other man in history and perhaps this ended up being harmful in the evaluation that contemporaries establishments of that time and posterity also made towards Napoleon as a man. Not to count the massive and endless Propaganda that his enemies inside and outside France spread against the "Corsican Ogre".

This would contrast with the assessment that he deserves for the accomplishments he did as a strategist, general, politician, administrator, legislator, State ruler, father and husband, taking into account the period during which he lived.

He was a man of his time, worth remembering for what he was able to do and the legacy he left.

We should, therefore, not to be led astray over a certain limit, by the religious and morals parameters in force today to judge him.

Doubtlessly he had his "dark side" which he showed in many occasions and several disgraceful mistakes he committed. But should we consider those as overwhelming factors of our judgment, no other hero or prominent personality of the history could be considered as "good", with exception of the Saints.

Answer 7

Napoleon was really both. He was at first a heroic defender of the French Revolution, but later became a tyrannical emperor.

Answer 8

Well, since the proper definition of "tyrant" is someone who seizes political power illegally, then yes, he was a tyrant. From the Latin, "Tyrannus", meaning "illegitimate ruler"