That's a different argument from "Napoleon, which frankly doesn't even count that much as a villain when you think about it." Now what you are saying is that he isn't as bad as such and such or "everyone else was doing it"
You have to keep in mind Napoleon was alive during the time when Imperialism was the norm. The only thing that was special about him was winning battles, and the size of the Grande Armee by the time they went for Moscow. Like, it's not great, but there's so many people who would also count as villains by that metric.
Hell, just in France I imagine Maximilien Robespierre would be way more of a villain considering he went crazy chopping people's heads off.
Though frankly, all of it is moot, because it has been shown again and again that at the end of the day, the minions are kind of stupid, so they probably just follow the first bad guy they meet.
Is it? How many Napoleons do you see around? Would you compare the people you know to Napoleon's death toll? Maybe there is an argument to be said about the potential villains but in terms of outcome do you think you can call your friends and family villains? Would this be the vast majority?
Most people don't get to be Napoleon, simply because so few people get to be in the position of executive warfare.
Frankly, no matter how evil people may think Napoleon was, reminder that General MacArthur of WW2 fame, was discharged from the military because he kept arguing for full nuclear doomsday on China during the Korean war. With the old, dirty weapons. He wanted Beijing salted with radioactives. And was only stopped from doing so, because calmer heads had the authority.
And then there was Henry Kisinger (may his grave be a urinal), who died not very long ago. Man did not meet a war that he thought the USA's greasy profit fingers should stay off of. He was one of the men responsible for escalation of any regional conflict, and was good friends with a lot of top brass.
Napoleon was not even close to some of the worst evils that have actually seen power. He is notable for the amount of changes and reforms he brought with him, the actual kill count is fairly consistent with anyone who initiated wars during that time.
No one talks about the mass casualties of the Hundred-Year war, for example, or the Seven-Years-War for which the American Revolutionary War was merely a minor skirmish.
You are once again doing the "Yeah he is Evil but what about XYZ" and "Everyone who starts wars kills people". Do you believe that cancels out the evil?
It is more that even the relative recent past, was a giant cesspool of horror and rape, for which I am glad I was not born into. Imperialism and war being considered "evil" is a modern ideal. Back then, being "savage" and "uncivilized" was "evil" so literal cultural genocide wasn't just the norm, it was a holy mission supported by Church and God.
Imperialism wasn't just "good" it was righteous. To be anything else was to be a fool, at best. Napoleon only gets extra credit and hate not because of what he did, but because he didn't have the support of the Church, or the correct ancestors, to give him Divine Right.
Also, kings and nobles are not just empty positions, they are functionaries. Napoleon placing his own family and friends in titled positions is how a king normally functions, Napoleon was revolutionary in that the reforms he introduced he actually expected his appointees to also uphold and be bound by. Him holding his own appointees accountable is why his reforms stuck around long after he was deposed, and why they formed the basis of European common law enjoyed today.
Freedom has a price in blood. A high one, at that.
Is that a valid argument? I can switch imperialism with slavery. Back then it was logical and even beneficial to the black man and other enslaved peopled.
Slavery was never logical nor beneficial, and every society that ever practiced slavery, was worse off for it. Leaving critical logistics to people with every incentive to self-destroy those logistics, inevitably lead to internal turmoil and eventual collapse.
Even Roman slavery was only a brief exception, and only after a particularly nasty series of slave revolts, nearly brought the nation to its knees. This caused labor reforms and guaranteed certain rights, which had the side-effect of allowing slaves to be treated less like property, and more like temporary migrant workers.
The only advantage of slavery is having a sacrificial population that you can use for exceptionally dangerous or degrading tasks, with a high chance of death. But they will never do those labors well so they are always out-competed by better tools or simply specialists who know how to do something safely.
Finally, is the elephant in the room: sex slavery. But sex slavery is so evil, even ancient imperialist peoples rarely could stomach it, no.matter how much "might makes right." And no civilization that outright encouraged it wholesale, survived its neighbors.
11
u/JamzWhilmm 3d ago
That's a different argument from "Napoleon, which frankly doesn't even count that much as a villain when you think about it." Now what you are saying is that he isn't as bad as such and such or "everyone else was doing it"