AGEOD Forums

Consider it blatent self promotion, as I am 'Thanos' co-owner of Nx Generation gamers, Napoleon's Campaigns is our first featured review:

http://www.nxgenerationgamers.com/napoleonscampaigns.html

A fine review...

Any positive review of the game is greatly appreciated.

Yet, one has to wonder about it after reading the very first sentence. Too bad the author has perpetuated the lie that Napoleon was a dictator.

[color="Red"]To be totally fair, Napoleon was no more of a dictator than any other monarch was at the time.[/color] We got to admit that he was very energetic and he proactively sought to eliminate the domination that his nation suffered, at the hands of other European nations. To be certain, he was not always friendly towards his enemies and some people hated him. Yet, it was also true that many loved him. Napoleon was not a dictator.

After all is said and done, he was Emperor of France.

Also, I noticed that the reviewer failed to even notice that the game is WE-GO. (The only way to wargame, in my opinion.)

Le Tondu wrote:Yet, one has to wonder about it after reading the very first sentence. Too bad the author has perpetuated the lie that Napoleon was a dictator.

I also noticed that but as a French I couldn't decently intervene and be 100% objective...

Surtout que certains français pensent que ce fut effectivement un dictateur prenant le pouvoir par un coup d'Etat en ayant recours à la force armée contre les représentants du peuple légitimement élus...
Mais je n'en fais pas partie

Bonaparte was a dictator, he siezed control of the directorate and threatened to imprison the 500 if they failed to follow his will.

You can of course feel differently, but historically, he was of course a dictator.

Likewise, Napoleon was not a dictator. He ran his nation just like any other monarch that was around. You can say otherwise, but it doesn't change a thing. Napoleon I was Emperor of France.

This thread needs to be locked.

Why does it need to be locked?

BTW, he was not like other Monarchs, he placed the crown on his own head, the other monarchs were hereditary.

Doesn't make Napoleon less of a leader or a ruler, in fact his codes were far more fair and progressive then the old crowned heads of Europe.

But it is also true that Napoleon ended the first Republic and ruthlessly surpressed dissent and the press within France, and his hold was also tenuous, especailly while he was on campaign.

Men like Tallyrand were always looking to usurp his rule whenever they could.

So far this thread has been dealing with historical facts, without any personnal attack nor agressivity. So it's ok to me.


IMHO:

You can't oppose the Empire to monarchies. The Empire was also hereditary, it was just defeated before any succession could be accomplished. I'm not sure that the fact he placed the crown on itself himself rather than to receive it from the Churck makes him less monarch.

In pure facts, Napoleon took the power thanks to a coup. However, this coup was planned by Republicans such as Sieyes. If the troops were used, this intervention had not been planned, things were going out of control. By many aspect, the events at the 500 is a failed coup... and later, the power structuree was never taken by the army as you can see it in classic dictatures.

The Bonaparte coup has to be taken in context. Revolutionnary France had been killing its own people, the regime was blocked as it was impossible to change the Constitution and the country was facing rising dangers. As I said, the coup was planned by some of the most respected Republicans.
One important thing to understand is that in the French political culture, it's ok to be a dictature as long as you are serving the country...
Exemple: Robespierre, Bonaparte, Napoleon III, Pétain, De Gaule, (Sarkozy?)
There is a long list of men who have been running the country in period of great dangers and who were allowed to not respect the common law as long as they were serving the common good. I know this might look completly crazy (I don't share this opinion my self) by there is even an expression for this: "Le mythe de l'homme providentiel"
Don't be mistaken, Napoleon might have been a dictator but he was an extremly popular one, and each change to the constitution to form the Empire was decided via a referendum. In Contitutionnal law, we call this type of regime caracterised by a direct link between the leader and the people: "Cesarism". Parlementary regimes supporterts call them dictature, however I feel they miss something important in the analysis.

Last thing, contrary to most European monarchies at the time, Napoleon was a progressist. Modern Europe (except Great-Britain) is still using the solid basis he built for modern admnistration: Napoleonic code, organised administration, modern roads, etc. Under the Empire, plenty of people were able to become rich and famous without respect of their origins. One could not say the same of his ennemies.
This is one of the reasons why Napoleon, despite his coup, is still very popular in France.

As you can see, if the points about Napoleon being a dictator are pretty much valid from a parliementary point of view, the facts are more complex. Never forget that in 1815, Napoleon was still popular enough to be able to retake the country from the king with only an handfull of men.

To be discussed of course!

When you talk of a dictator, you immediately think of Stalin and Hitler; by definition these were dictators who suppressed large sections of their populations via a state-run secret police and concentration camps. I would argue that Napoleon was never in the same league as 20thC dictators; he was a progressive (to an extent) and did introduce the Code Napoleon throughout Europe which as was mentioned is still used to today as a basis of State laws etc. He also was popular amongst the serfs and peasantry of the monarchical states of Eastern Europe - which cannot be said of modern dictators who rule by suppression. The only section of the population that Revolutionary France suppressed were the aristocracy and monarchy. I think, or at least at the beginning of his rule he was exporting the virtues of 1789, but later become a bit of a megalomaniac with his crowning.

I think its wrong to equate him on the same footing as dictators such as Stalin or any other modern despot.

Kev_uk wrote:When you talk of a dictator, you immediately think of Stalin and Hitler

I disagree. Personally, when I see Napoleon labeled as "dictator", I think of it more in terms of how Caesar was a dictator, especially since there are more than a few similarities in the way they rose to power.

(Of course, this might have to do with my watching "Rome" recently )

Rafiki wrote:I disagree. Personally, when I see Napoleon labeled as "dictator", I think of it more in terms of how Caesar was a dictator, especially since there are more than a few similarities in the way they rose to power.

(Of course, this might have to do with my watching "Rome" recently )

True, and I think that Revolutionary France, both in its art, architecture and politics was modelled on Classical Roman style, and the picture of Napoleons coronation in 1804 reeks of Caesar-worship

Korrigan wrote:One important thing to understand is that in the French political culture, it's ok to be a dictature as long as you are serving the country...
Exemple: Robespierre, Bonaparte, Napoleon III, Pétain, De Gaule, (Sarkozy?)

One thing I would like to add is that I think the actual French form of "ultra" presidentialism (all powerful president, with a long tenure in power between elections, a parliament that's relatively weak, etc) is somewhat reminiscent of a form of dicature, albeit "democratic"

(PS: this discussion is interesting, but maybe should be moved to the general discussions ?)

Franciscus wrote:One thing I would like to add is that I think the actual French form of "ultra" presidentialism (all powerful president, with a long tenure in power between elections, a parliament that's relatively weak, etc) is somewhat reminiscent of a form of dicature, albeit "democratic"

(PS: this discussion is interesting, but maybe should be moved to the general discussions ?)

I rather fear posts are derivating into a political war; you know, the sport that consists, in France, to call "bad" who has not the same opinion than yours, even if Universal Suffrage decides first and above all.

Better to speak about games and let politicians discuss and fight outside these forums...

Adlertag wrote:Better to speak about games and let politicians discuss and fight outside these forums...

I agree fully. Over and out.