|
|
Post by maya55555 on Nov 1, 2020 3:04:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Nov 1, 2020 22:22:28 GMT
It's good to be the King
|
|
|
|
Post by theauxphou on Apr 22, 2021 21:11:02 GMT
Cool video. I’ve got Charles Martel, Pepin the Short, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Louis the Stammerer, Charles the Bald, Charles the Simple, Hugh Capet, Henry I, Louis IV, Louis VI, Philip I, Robert I and Robert II in my family tree. (But then again, they’re in hundreds of millions of people’s.)
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperDevilDoctor on Apr 23, 2021 5:47:55 GMT
Napoleon was a better ruler than all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Apr 23, 2021 11:17:19 GMT
Henry IV who was king from 1589 to 1610 is probably the greatest monarch France has had.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on Apr 27, 2021 18:33:05 GMT
Napoleon was a better ruler than all of them. It's sad how some history has treated Bonaparte. He's viewed at either a Hitler preview or a short little loony with his hand stuffed in his shirt. Legally, culturally, domestically, he did amazing thing to France and the parts of Europe he ruled. Yeah, he did some bad things. He stomped out his opposition ruthlessly, his troops did not do nice things in Spain and Russia. And his rule was one constant war. Not all was started by him, most were not. But I do think he might have done more to stop them. I believe that if had offered to return France to it's 1792 borders if the Coalition Powers had recognized his rule, the wars would have been over.
And, oh yeah, he was a fairly decent general. Over 70 battles, lost 7-8 (depending on what you call a "loss". But three, Acre, Leipzig and Waterloo, were catastrophes. He did benefit from an amazing set of subordinates. His Marshals were great generals. Murat, Davout, Soult, Lannes, Ney, Jourdan, Massena, etc
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on May 4, 2021 13:51:48 GMT
Napoleon was a better ruler than all of them. It's sad how some history has treated Bonaparte. He's viewed at either a Hitler preview or a short little loony with his hand stuffed in his shirt. Legally, culturally, domestically, he did amazing thing to France and the parts of Europe he ruled. Yeah, he did some bad things. He stomped out his opposition ruthlessly, his troops did not do nice things in Spain and Russia. And his rule was one constant war. Not all was started by him, most were not. But I do think he might have done more to stop them. I believe that if had offered to return France to it's 1792 borders if the Coalition Powers had recognized his rule, the wars would have been over.
And, oh yeah, he was a fairly decent general. Over 70 battles, lost 7-8 (depending on what you call a "loss". But three, Acre, Leipzig and Waterloo, were catastrophes. He did benefit from an amazing set of subordinates. His Marshals were great generals. Murat, Davout, Soult, Lannes, Ney, Jourdan, Massena, etc
Fairly decent sounds like an understatement. He belongs up there with the likes of Alexander the Great, Alexander Suvorov, and Hannibal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 4, 2021 18:07:32 GMT
Napoleon was a better ruler than all of them. It's sad how some history has treated Bonaparte. He's viewed at either a Hitler preview or a short little loony with his hand stuffed in his shirt. Legally, culturally, domestically, he did amazing thing to France and the parts of Europe he ruled. Yeah, he did some bad things. He stomped out his opposition ruthlessly, his troops did not do nice things in Spain and Russia. And his rule was one constant war. Not all was started by him, most were not. But I do think he might have done more to stop them. I believe that if had offered to return France to it's 1792 borders if the Coalition Powers had recognized his rule, the wars would have been over.
And, oh yeah, he was a fairly decent general. Over 70 battles, lost 7-8 (depending on what you call a "loss". But three, Acre, Leipzig and Waterloo, were catastrophes. He did benefit from an amazing set of subordinates. His Marshals were great generals. Murat, Davout, Soult, Lannes, Ney, Jourdan, Massena, etc
A fairly decent general ? He was not a fairly decent general, he is the greatest general in human history.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheGoodMan19 on May 4, 2021 20:44:52 GMT
It's sad how some history has treated Bonaparte. He's viewed at either a Hitler preview or a short little loony with his hand stuffed in his shirt. Legally, culturally, domestically, he did amazing thing to France and the parts of Europe he ruled. Yeah, he did some bad things. He stomped out his opposition ruthlessly, his troops did not do nice things in Spain and Russia. And his rule was one constant war. Not all was started by him, most were not. But I do think he might have done more to stop them. I believe that if had offered to return France to it's 1792 borders if the Coalition Powers had recognized his rule, the wars would have been over.
And, oh yeah, he was a fairly decent general. Over 70 battles, lost 7-8 (depending on what you call a "loss". But three, Acre, Leipzig and Waterloo, were catastrophes. He did benefit from an amazing set of subordinates. His Marshals were great generals. Murat, Davout, Soult, Lannes, Ney, Jourdan, Massena, etc
A fairly decent general ? He was not a fairly decent general, he is the greatest general in human history. It was just a silly understatement, Captain Literal. Good God, my grandson's goldfish knows Bonaparte was a great general.
Would he have been without his supporting cast? He has one of the greatest set of subordinate commanders in history. Soult, Davout, Lannes, Murat, etc. Robert Lee was a superior tactician. The Army of Northern Virginia started losing when his great subordinates, Longstreet, Jackson, Stuart were dead or wounded, and the replacements weren't up to snuff
|
|
