@blockurator,

Look Block ... I get what's going on. You have hat-envy! You're pissed that Napoleon got his own signature line while you, a Sharp Dressed Man, didn't.

.

.
Grant it, it's not fair. But how's that Napoleon's fault? The world of fashion is a bitch.

Alright, seriously. During the Revolution that proceeded Napoleon's ascension, France was eviscerating itself. It started with guillotining the nobility then it progressed to the clergy. Then it progressed to people standing in line for bread who weren't sufficiently enthusiastic about the "Republic." The mere allegation of unpatriotism, asserted by anyone for any reason, resulted in countless thousands losing their heads.

A new (atheistic) State Religion was created as was a new calendar (new months) and a new watch (number of hours in a day). And a new system of weights and measures (Metric ... that was actually a good thing). Revolutionary France was a totalitarian regime that sought to control EVERY ASPECT of everyone's lives. Resistance was a capital crime. The Utopian Dream soon became an Ideological Nightmare (as all Utopian Dreams do).

This is to say nothing of the fact that the rest of Europe was constantly trying to invade France to restore the monarchy before the idea of overthrowing monarchs spread.

Against gargantuan odds, Napoleon restored order. He most assuredly WAS NOT a Hitler. People argue that he "invaded countries in conquest." He didn't.

He was a realist. When you see three armies forming on your borders, you don't wait for them to merge, creating an insurmountable opponent. If you have a brain, you preemptively attack them one by one so that each battle is something akin to a fair fight. But, because such preemption necessitated his "crossing the border first" ... history (written by the victors) calls him the "invader."

Other than looting castles and museums (which everyone did back then), upon invading a country, Napoleon did not ravage the countryside. He quickly set up administrative departments that frequently lead to an immediate improvement in people's lives. The Napoleonic Code would become the basis of the Civil Law still in use throughout most of Continental Europe. And, Napoleon instituted the idea of a Meritocracy, establishing France's Grand Ecoles where access was based upon demonstrable merit, not privilege.

This is not to say that there weren't hardships. France and its conquered territories were at war. There was a Continental blockade that dramatically effected trade. But upon being freed, many of these conquered lands retained Napoleon's reforms and consider his conquest a vital step towards their eventual democratization.

Was it democracy? No. It was autocracy.

But there was no democracy in the rest of Europe either. People forget that all this transpired a decade after the American Revolution which was such a radical concept at the time than many American revolutionaries didn't believe it would work (Washington's generals offered to make him king).

"Presentism" (a current obsession of Far Left intellectuals) is the analysis of historical events and figures using modern mores. All serious historians rail against it. What was considered "ethical" historically is dramatically different than what is considered "ethical" today ... in part because the environmental conditions that help shape ethics are so different.

Did Napoleon have flaws? Of course. But so did the world in which he lived ... and to survive, one adapts to his environment.

And keep in mind that without Napoleon, we would never have had Abba (with all their wonderful outfits and flawlessly fluid choreography) as "Waterloo" was the song that rocketed them to notoriety.
.

.
Quill