1
   

Would the world be a better place if Napoleon had taken over

 
 
Reply Sun 1 Feb, 2004 11:23 pm
I've always wondered if Napoleon couldn't have made a better world than we have now. He was against slavery, for human rights, and could have united the world for the first time.
Unfortunately, I don't have anymore knowledge about this extraordinary man. Give me your input, tell me what you think. Is there anyone else who might have succeeded in these tasks?



By the way, Napoleon was taller than me. How sad...
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,469 • Replies: 15
No top replies

 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 11:34 am
Are you referring to Napoleon I, II or III?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 11:47 am
Individual: Would the world be a better place if Napoleon had taken over?

No.

Fishin': Would the world be a better place if any Napoleon had taken over?

Definitely: NO!
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 12:02 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Fishin': Would the world be a better place if any Napoleon had taken over?

Definitely: NO!


lol Well, ok. I'd agree with that. Napoleon I was a whole lot worse than III was though. Wink
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 12:10 pm
I personally think that Napoleone Buonaparte, was the most dangerous thing which ever happened to France. On the plus side, he was one of histories greatest organizers, and put the French economy on a sound basis. On the minus side, however, is the fact that he did so in order to finance his wars. Everything else about the man is on the minus side as well, and in particular, his cavalier disregard for the slaughter he inflicted on his own troops in his quest for glory, as well as the absolutely abysmal medical services in the army which had introduced military medicine to the world. Sadly, the rise of the "Holy Alliance" assured that the world was not better off after he was gone.

All in all, France and Europe would have been better off without him.
0 Replies
 
Dartagnan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 12:15 pm
Then again, we might be eating better if the French had taken over the world...
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 08:23 pm
We need a good historian to give us his or her point of view.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 08:28 pm
I'll go see if i can scrape one up . . .
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 08:29 pm
*snicker*
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 09:17 pm
http://www.woody-allen.de/gruschenko4.jpg

Quote:
"Do you want your loved ones conquered by Napoleon and forced to live under French rule? Do you want them to eat that rich food and those heavy sauces? Do you want them to have soufleé every meal, and croissants?"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 09:21 pm
Damn, Woody is French?

I always thought he was Jewish . . . oh well, live an' learn . . .
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 09:30 pm
ok, let's act as though we were serious here . . .

I'd rate Louis Bonaparte, the soi-disant Napoleon III, was as much a disaster to international affairs as his uncle. How many french socialist, and simply confused, misled, or even simply earnest French men and women were killed in the December coup and its aftermath? How many English, Turks, Sardinians, French and Russians dead in the Crimea? How many French, Austrians and Italians dead at Solferion and Magenta? How many Mexicans, French, Belgians and Austrians dead in Mexico? How many dead Alsatians, Lorrainers, Prussians, Wurtemburgers, Bavarians and French in 1871? He was a putz . . .
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 09:41 pm
But he ensured your human rights weren't violated if he liked you! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 09:52 pm
Damn straight . . . you ever seen a picture of the boy?

He got bourgeoisie written all over him . . .
0 Replies
 
acepoly
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2004 10:55 pm
No world is better than that ruled by women.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Feb, 2004 10:22 am
Mr. Stillwater: Nice reference to "Love and Death."

    "The question is have I learned anything about life. Only that human beings are divided into mind and body. The mind embraces all the nobler aspirations, like poetry and philosophy, but the body has all the fun. The important thing, I think, is not to be bitter... if it turns about that there is a god, I don't think that he is evil, I think that the worse thing you could say is that he is, basically, an under-achiever. After all, there are worse things in life than death. If you've ever spent an evening with an insurance salesman, you know what I'm talking about. The key is, to not think of death as an end, but as more of a very effective way to cut down on your expenses. Regarding love, heh, what can you say? It's not the quantity of your sexual relations that counts. It's the quality. On the other hand if the quantity drops below once every eight months, I would definitely look into. Well, that's about it for me folks. Goodbye."
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Would the world be a better place if Napoleon had taken over
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/02/2024 at 01:19:12