Napoleon in pictures

[padisha emperor]

First part (until 1799)

Napoleon Bonaparte at the Royal Military School of Brienne during his studies.

Napoleon as Officer in the Royal national Guard, 1792.

Napoleon at Toulon, december 1793, during the siege against the British.

During the negotiating of the Alpes

At the bridge of Arcole, during the first campaign of Italy against Austria (november 1796)

the battle of Rivoli, january 1797

Battle of the pyramids, 1798

Putsch of the 18 Brumaire Year VIII (november, the 9th, 1799)

Napoleon, first Consul, 1799

 

[dmp]

 

[padisha emperor]

second part

Marengo, 1800 (second campaign of Italy against Austria)

Napoleon first consul, at life (1802)

Consecration of Napoleon, december 2nd 1804

Emperor

The distribution of the Eagles (the flags)

Trafalgar

Reddition of Ulm, 10-20- 1805

Austerlitz, december 2nd 1805 (the general Rapp show to Napoleon the enemies flags catpured and the prince Repnine, prisonner), against Russia and Austria (anniversary of the consecration)

Battle of Iena, october 14th 1806 against Prussia

 

[padisha emperor]

Third part

Battle of Eylau, february 8th, 1807

Charge of the french cavalry at Eylau. The biggest charge of cavalry of the History.

Battle of Friedland, june 14th, 1807 (anniversary of Marengo, 1800)

Tres de Mayo, May, 3rd, 1808

Battle of Somosierra, 1808. Here are the polish spearmen.

Battle of Essling, 1809

Battle of Wagram, july 1809 (the last picture shows the general Lasalle, cavalry hero)

 

[Said1]

I love the Consecration/Coronation print. His parents weren't actually there were they?

 

[padisha emperor]

Fourth part

Battle of Borodino, 1812

Battle of Leipzig, 1813 (allied general staff, with king of Prussia, Emperor of Austria, Tzar of Russia)

Campaign of France (1814), where Napoleon show again his military genius

Battle of Montmirail 1814

Battle of Montereau, 1814

Battle of Ligny, june 16th 1815 (Against Prussia)

The first abdication, at Fontainebleau, 1814

after the abdication

 

[padisha emperor]

Fifth part
Waterloo, June the 18th, 1815

Prussian at Waterloo

Charge of the french "cuirassiers"

Maréchal Ney at Waterloo, during one of his famous charge this day.

French cavalry charge against a british infantery square

At Saint-Helene (1815-1821)

 

[padisha emperor]

I love the Consecration/Coronation print. His parents weren't actually there were they?

Exactly.

Jacques-Louis David, the painter, show the mother on Napoleon on the middle of the picture (on a cair, above Joséphine), but at this time, december, the 2nd, 1804, she was at Roma .

 

[Zhukov]

The Duke of Wellington

 

[padisha emperor]

The real winner of Waterloo is Blücher.

(but it's sure he's less pretty than Wellesley

 

[KarlMarx]

I'm not familiar with this time period, but isn't Napolean to the French as Hitler is to the Germans?

Didn't he after all, make himself emperor? Didn't he betray the ideals of the French Revolution (i.e. overthrow of the aristocracy and foundation of a republic based on Equality, Fraternity, and Liberty)? He invaded Europe, then tried to invade Russia (with the same results as Hitler)....

Beethoven wrote his 3rd symphony (Eroica) in honor of Napolean, but then, after hearing what Napolean was really like, in bitter disappointment, crossed out the dedication to him and dedicated it instead "to the memory of a great man"

I can't understand how anyone can admire this person....

 

[padisha emperor]

Napoleon cannot be compared with Hitler.

Napoleon was a real military genius. he won more battles than Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar united, and his the military chief who gave the most battles of all History.
Even Carl von Clausewitz, probably one of the best, if he is not the best, military tactician and theorician, took Napoleon as a god of war. And when you see the Napoleon's battles, it's obvious.
Even when he was in numerical inferiority, he won. Like during the France Campaign, 1814 : France is under invasion, Napoleon has less soldiers, but won 12 battles about the 14 engaged.

ON a military point of view, he has no link with Hitler, Napoleon was a real genius.

On a administrative and interior point of view he did great things : the "lycée", (school for the pupils from 15 to 18 years old), they're still here today.
The "Prefets", represantants of the State and Republic in the departments (law of 1800), still here actually.
He gave to France the "Code Civil", the civilian laws (for mariages, divorces, contracts, responsability - personnal, for the fact of somebody else, responsability of the things.........all the things who are not penal, or administrative laws). The Code Civil of 1804 is still used (of course, with modifications, with the evolution of society).

napoleon gave to France a new administraive organisation, still used today, an excelent administration.


Of course, it was a dictatorship, but not a bloody dictatorship, no deportation of minorities, no racism - one of the most faithfull friends of the Emperor was Roustan, his Mameluk - .

You can't compare Napoleon with Hitler. You woouldn't ciompare Hitler with Caesar. So do not it with Napoleon.

I admire him for his talent, his hability to work hard, for the wellfare of France and Europe, and for his awesome military genius.

Napoleon wanted to unificate Europe (under the French rules), and created a giant Europe, powerful.
Some people think even that he is "responsible" of the IInd Reich in 1871, because befpore Napoleon, Germany is a patchwork of small States, only Prussia is really powerful, the other are not really might and important.
After him, Germany is more unificated, becasue Napoleon created the COnfederation of the Rhin, first step to the german union.


IN UK and USA, Napoleon is more well knwown to be the french tyran, the looser of Trafalgar Leipzig and Waterloo, and lot of people have doubts about his strategic genius.
But read books about him, you'll see it.
I personnly know about 50 battles under the Napoleonic period. About these 50 battles, there is 9 defeats (Aboukir naval battle, Trafalgar naval battle, Berezina 1812, Victoria 1813, Leipzig 1813, Toulouse 1814, Arcis-sur-Aube 1914, La Rothière 1814, Waterloo 1815)

The others are victories.



I totally undertsand that people don't like Napoleon. But you can admire a person even if you don't like him.
Clausewitz cetrainly didn't like Napoleon, but he has a giant admiration for him.

He crowned himself Emperor, but the senate vote for it. After only he crowned himself.

For Russia : not the same result than Hitler : Napoleon was IN Moscow, and it's more the winter than the Russians who defeated him.

This year, commemorations :
October, the 14th : Victory of Elchingen against Austria
October, the 20th : Victory at Ulm, reddition of the city (27 austrian generals and 40 flags taken, plus 69 guns)
October, the 21th : defeat of Trafalgar
December, the 2nd : Victory of Austerlitz

 

[KarlMarx]

OK then Napolean was France's Caesar....

And Caesar betrayed the Roman Republic, he was a military genius, too

He wanted to unite the known world under Roman Rule (meaning his rule). Of course, starting with Caesar, the rule of the Roman Emperors began and the Roman Republic died.

And doesn't the attitude that France will unite all of Europe still survive today? The latest round of voting on the EU Constitution gave me the impression that Jacque Chirac thought he was the next Napolean and that France would somehow "lead" the EU.... that sounds very Napoleonic to me.

And if you admire Napolean for establishing codes, being a military genius and so forth, then it seems strange to me that you don't admire America for the same thing. That is, making our presence felt in the Middle East and establishing the rule of law in that region.

But then, I can understand if you don't, after all, it's not a French presence in the area, but an American one.

 

[padisha emperor]

Compare Chirac and Napoleon is stupid.
And France is not against EU. (and the fact are here, France and Germany lead Europe since 1957)

And if you admire Napolean for establishing codes, being a military genius and so forth, then it seems strange to me that you don't admire America for the same thing. That is, making our presence felt in the Middle East and establishing the rule of law in that region.

No comparaison possible. America is a COUNTRY, Napoleon a MAN. How can you compare these things ?
I can say the same thing : if you admire US invasion in Iraq, why don't you admire Napoleon ? or the France under Revolution ? France under the XVIIIth century ? France under Middle Age, particularly during the XIIth XIIIth XIV th centuries, and middle and end of the XVth ?

And : Napoleon success to give laws, etc...the new administration was excellent, and France has still a good administration. And a very good law system (the french administrative laws are maybe the bestr of the world, I don't say that becasue I'm French, but it's a fact. Japan admire it, and some european countries take it)
Napoleon gave the Code Civil in the whole French Empire, in Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Poland, Rhine Confederation...and in a lot of these countries, it was use even after the fall of the Eagle, and still now sometimes ( Belgium, Luxembourg...)
In Iraq, it's a fucking hell, it is a real mess. So no comparaison with the Ist Empire.

About the military genius : HOW CAN YOU COMPARE THE IRAQ 2003 WITH THE NAPOLEONIC WARS ?

No way to compare. really not.

(Napoleon was at least same as Caesar, probably best )

 

[USViking]

Napoleon's great moral failure was the establishment on personal, royal rule, when he might have been a force for Democracy, with referenda in favor of this rule being beside the point.

In fairness, a continental power as dominant as post-revolutionary France might never have escaped the enmity of the UK. Even as a Democratic power it might have eventually succumbed to a UK-led coalition.

On the other hand, it might have survived by waiting out an isolated UK, had it not been for the calamitous twin strategic errors of invading both Spain and Russia.

France might concievably have survived one of these errors; it could not survive both.

 

[padisha emperor]

I agree with you USViking

Spain and Russia at same time... not a good idea.
But Spain is a particularity : invadedin 1808 I believe, occupied, then a guerila. You know that defat a guerrila with a regular army is hard.
And after, english troops

For the continental power : France was always a continental power. France has a great and good fleet, but it was not vital to her, nit like UK - UK without fleet would have died.
So France need a strong continental force. OF course, it didn't directly threathened England.

 

[USViking]

I agree with you USViking

Spain and Russia at same time... not a good idea.
But Spain is a particularity : invadedin 1808 I believe, occupied, then a guerila. You know that defat a guerrila with a regular army is hard.
And after, english troops

For the continental power : France was always a continental power. France has a great and good fleet, but it was not vital to her, nit like UK - UK without fleet would have died.
So France need a strong continental force. OF course, it didn't directly threathened England.

I agree England was never directly threatened as long as its navy was dominant.

The point is, it had by then assumed a policy of working against any continental power showing hegemonistic capacity. Even the British fleet would eventually be in jeopardy against a fleet drawn from a united continent.

Also, English commercial interests on the continent were tied to access through the Low Countries, and post-revolutionary France endangered these interests by its dominance of this area.