The thing is, if he was small as a kid, he would feel short all of his life. Also if he was 5'7" or average for the day, then he was probably among the shortest people in the room whenever he was among the rich and powerful people who were his bureaucrats and his generals. There was some upward mobility in France at the time, but as usual in history it was mostly mobility from the upper middle class taking spots vacated by the upper upper class.
@@paulpeterson4216 I'd take that him being mocked as a short kid with a grain of salt. He was gaunt, true. I've read a number of descriptions and he was mocked for a number of things; his unpronounceable last name, being a foreigner, his family's little income. One child insulted Napoléon's late father as a Corsican nationalist and thus a traitor - young Napoléon challenged him to a duel. Yet not much about his height. He might have been small framed but most kids are - they're kids. Crash Course got a number of things wrong in the video anyway (I'll recheck that one). However, the aforementioned torments had a much bigger effect on his attitude. And he would have been slightly above average so your assertion he was the shortest man in the room isn't true. True, his Old Guard were tall, but that's one specific unit. His adversary Horatio Nelson was ~164 cm or 5'4". The Archduke Charles, one of Napoléon's most persistent and overlooked adversaries was ~158 or 5'2". Both definitely shorter than Napoléon. The Duke of Wellington is either centimeters slightly shorter or slightly taller depending on what description you believe but hardly towering over Napoléon as pop culture suggests. So if anyone's height is in question it's actually other generals. Although it is continually rationalized, Napoleon Syndrome plays out as a myth.
@@Pelopen3bc Yes but. I agree that the Napoleon complex is misnamed, his height was almost certainly not the driving factor in his psychology. That said, I was not comparing his height to the Army writ large, the rank and file were almost certainly a good cross section of the nation, given that the French drafted virtually an entire generation into the army. The average French peasant; however, was likely shorter than the average French, wealthy, upper-middle class, denizen of Napoleon's court. Wealth is generational, and most of his generals came from wealth, even if not the nobility. With wealth comes things like always having enough food and other advantages, including some genetic advantages, as the basis for most wealth in early modern Europe was a tendency of your ancestors to have been successful warriors, indeed likely knights, because they were big and strong enough to seize wealth. That said, I don't want to say he was feeling like Herve Velasquez, but in his social circle he was almost certainly below average in height. The idea of the Napoleon complex is wrong, but there has been a cottage industry for a century in "debunking" the "myth" and the fact that he was likely average height AT BEST, and likely shorter than most of his peers, is not convenient for people who need to debunk everything about the N complex. (Not saying you)
@@paulpeterson4216 It's possible there was a differential in heights but not certain, we do know Napoléon _was_ taller than the average French peasant. Some of his generals came from wealth but others didn't. His best, Masséna, Lannes, and Davout, were either outright commoners or didn't come from money. Ney was the son of a cooper. The old aristocracy _was_ being replaced, even if a few remained. About his social circle, you can't say he was "almost certainly". Some we happen to know are taller, some we happen to know are shorter, some we'd need to dig up archives. You'd need to find their average and that conjecture would need to be supported. He was not "at best" average height; he was taller. 5'7" is taller than 5'5". Full stop. And one important question: why would Napoléon _especially_ have problems with height but the well-documented generals who were much shorter than him didn't? You don't need to debunk Napoleon Complex. It must be proven first. And one thing I forgot to mention before: despite the hostility he faced in his school days, Napoléon actually forgave them and looked back on his school days (at Brienne) with nostalgia. He did remember individuals who were kind to him and later rewarded them. But during the Revolution he violated orders to help a former school boy adversary avoid imprisonment. Despite his depression during Brienne, and retaining his disdain for most aristocrats, he oddly _wasn't_ bitter about his youth.
Probably that the perceived ancient glory of Rome is highly sought by authority as an unreproachable expression of righteous justification of their rule, which is probably why the Capitol building has a mural of Washington ascending to godhood
Andrew Farrell Yes when you get nitpicky of course Napoleon couldn’t do anything alone. But very few times can you say that a mans ideas shaped the world in some way.
Andrew Farrell And yes, I do think Napoleon changed the world alone. When he came back from exile he literally gathered an army of like 200,000 soldiers and took back France. If that doesn’t show how much power and respect you command then I don’t know what does. Another thing is that Napoleon was a brilliant strategist using new tactics with state of the art weaponry.
Magnus Peacock I’m saying it’s important because he inspired his men even despite them fighting for a different french government. That’s how powerful Napoleon was.
To add to the idea about how artists included Napoleon in their work, Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony, Sinfonia Eroica (Heroic Symphony), was originally titled Sinfonia Buonaparte. Beethoven was enamored with Napoleon’s anti-monarchical ideals and believed strongly in the idea of democracy. However, when Napoleon named himself Emperor, Beethoven revoked the dedication, ripping the title page of his score in half, and then he retitled it to Eroica. Another copy of the original title page has two subtitles, “intitolata Bonaparte” (“Titled Bonaparte”), and “Greschriben auf Bonaparte” (“Written for Bonaparte”), scratched out.
It's cool how he actually acknowledged Napoleon's flaws and changed his views. I imagine a lot of people would stay fanatically devoted to certain leaders, regardless of how cruel or hypocritical they get.
This is similar to the story of Ugo Foscolo, an important Italian poet. He addressed an ode to Napoleon, seen as the carrier of the principles of the revolution but after the Treaty of Campoformio by which Napoleon handed Venice, his town, over to the Austrians he felt betrayed and had disdain and resentment. Since this event, Foscolo showed himself hostile to any pro-Parisian government. (sorry for my poor english but I wanted to tell this story)
The Napoleonic invasion of Spain gave English the word "guerrilla" war. It described the Spanish resistance fighters who hide in the rural areas and attacked the invaders in small raids. Guerrilla is Spanish for "Little War".
Not quite, "guerrilla" refers to an unorganized or paramilitary group and not the act of making war. In spanish we even have the phrase "guerra de guerrilas" or guerrilla war. I guess you can say "guerrita" to refer to an small war but no one says that.
Napoleon’s brother’s weren’t really incompetent except for Jerome. Louis was popular in Holland and ruled pretty well. He couldn’t really enforce the Continental system and was removed by Napoleon. Had Napoleon kept Louis on the throne, the Dutch would likely have been more amenable to Napoleon. Joseph as King of Naples enacted land reform and helped alleviate the Kingdom’s bankruptcy and provided relief to the peasantry by liquidating many church lands whom the government didn’t collect taxes on. Many of these lands were redistributed to the peasantry. Lucien Bonaparte was instrumental in Napoleon’s coup against the incompetent Directory.
Justin Pachi this is true. And by placing family members on the thrones of foreign countries Napoleon sought to create the one thing he never really had: allies. All the old monarchies of Europe never accepted him as one of their own out of fear.
@@justinpachi3707 Napoleon was NOT good for France or Europe, so in the end, Napoleon actually proved to be an incompetent, disastrous leader.. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars. Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value. Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep You're not wrong, but kind of missing the point of this episode and the story behind it. French people (as far as I can tell from my french family) see Napoleon as a national hero for all he archieved for France. His failings aren't ignored - they're part of the story, but make him rather more relateable. A commoner who reached the top, turned chaos into order and achieved lots of things - but also had human failings. I thought John did a good job showing, that he created more than wars. That the revolution and its aftermath were drenched in blood, but also brought changes he spearheaded, which reformed not only france, but all of europe and much of the world.
@@lsatep your comment is probably the first so long comment I've read :) thank you for such an interesting point of view. Here in Russia, despite the fact that he killed thousands of our ancestors, our historical propaganda works for Napoleon glory and greatness too. I suppose, it's also enough beneficial for us, as we won the most powerful army and empire in the world. Also good side, that our occupation no France gave our aristocracy view, how Europe is different then Russia and it caused the December Revolution, which was directed towards Europeisation of Russia. But unfortunately it has collapsed and all aristocratic officers were imprisoned.
As a French, I grew up with a mostly positive image of Napoleon, because I don't recall school teaching us all the bad things he did. We learned about the Napoleon Code ("Code Civil" over here, which was also followed by many codes of criminal law, commercial law, etc.), how he was obsessed by the Roman Empire and very war-driven. But honestly, he was at worst framed as an enlightened despot. Didn't help that I had a father who practically worshipped him. My point is mostly that in the last five years I've found out how horrible he was, and also how much of Europe sees him as a tyran. Ask a french and a british about Napoleon, opinions will be really different :'). At the end of the day, he was probably that complex. A complete dictator, who did many good things. To be honest, I think he was exactly what the nation needed at that moment. History is an interesting discipline because, as objective as you try to be, there is always opinion. Anyway, great video as always, I love how you always update us on women and don't invisibilize them as has always been the case in all history classes i've ever taken.
Napoleon did a lot of bad things, and he did a lot of good things. But whether you think he was a tyrant or a hero or a bit of both it can't be denied that he left an enduring mark on the world.
@victor hoang Shots fired indeed. It's called football! Americans all have a tiny archeologist inside them, as they are terrible at naming things. That's the best explanation I have as to why they use the term football for a game that would be better described by the term "arm pit eg"... :D
Just one man? Didn't he at least have a cook? ;) It took seven (or five or six, whatever) coalitions to take down one man - together with millions of others, French and non-French, who were with him.
4:20 Interestingly, the German word for emperor is also stemming fom Caesar: "Kaiser". Of course that makes sense as well, considering the Holy Roman Empire understood itself as the continuation of the OG Roman Empire.
The word emperor is from Latin too. Imperator was a plural form of preator. And preator meant a military and political figure, responsible of the well being and expanditure of a certain land or situation.
@@TheLuuuuuc Really? Because whenever a member of the senate was having a bunch of legions for a purpose, wasn't he called imperator? A preator can lead an army, an imperator can lead a huge army if memory serves.
@@subutaynoyan5372 That's totally wrong. First the plural of praetor is praetores (In Latin the plural is never formed by prefix), second praetor originates from prae-ire, "move in front of [sb./sth.]." On the other hand, imperator is the person who reigns over an imperium. Imperium comes from the word imperare, which translates to ruling.
Thank you, someone understands it. Napoléon understood the logistical nightmare that was ruling all of the Russias and did not envy that headache. His plan was to have a major victory and force Emperor Alexander to comply with probably a modified version of the Treaty of Tilsit.
Everything in this video is very simplified to the point of sometimes being inaccurate. Like saying Napoleon "wanted to conquer Europe", while he actually really did it on self-defense as European monarchies declared war on France because they hated seeing a commoner on the throne. Or acting like the muslim population of early 19th century Egypt cared about the ancient pagan artifacts the French recovered from their land. In reality they had so little respect for ancient artifacts they even used them as building material (that's how the Rosetta stone was found by the French in the ruins of a recent military fort).
He said "especially because Russia opted out of his continental system." The continental system was that embargo you are talking about. So he didn't forget it.
Having lived in several parts of the world, I see a very distinct dichotomy in how Napoleon is perceived. In French-speaking countries, he is still to this day glorified, exalted and idolized as a liberator, a forward-thinker, a military genius and an inspiration. In English-speaking countries, he is reviled, hated, dismissed as a blood-thirsty, conquer-happy demagogue.
Not really lucky though, Napoleon was a better ruled than most of the leaders of Europe at the time. the only one who might have been a better ruled than Napoleon was Jean Baptist Bernadotte, once one of Napoleon's general (and the guy who planned the Leipzig campaign against him). Everyone else went back to their pre napoleonic corrupt systems. Except Britain who never left this corrupt pre napoleonic system. What made Sweden so great in the coming century is that they kept their Napoleonic monarch and his reforms.
He was a hero, he was a chance for European unity. First one since Charlemagne. Because the British managed to turn everyone agaisnt him we had to wait another century before another chance (the German concept of Mittleeuropa when they looked on the verge of winning ww1) and when that failed another century. But Europe shall be united.
@@DaDunge As a French I disagree, there are only two people that dream of United Europe : - France - Germany In both cases it's because we are the two children of Charlemagne, and in both cases if it happens, this unification would be under the rule of the country that makes it. Just look at how Napoléon started to adapt all the countries to the French standards in less than 10 years.
As a person who struggles with history and always has history teachers who end up just rambling in trying to connect points together. Putting it in a timeline is a godsend
I (rarely) disagree with you John, because your videos are very good at capturing a concept's essence, but I have to speak up. Napoleon, a lay man, and his rise to power represented an enormous threat to the Ancièn Régime, or the old monarchical ways of Europe. If I'm not mistaken, every war Napoleon fought (coalitions 3-7) was started by the British or the Austrians. Virtually every monarchy in Europe wanted him gone, and they were willing to fight to see that goal achieved. Portraying Napoleon as a bloodthirsty conqueror is just a little bit disingenuous; at most one could say he used the impending threat of invasion as an excuse to conquer and expand the buffer zone around France. The only exception to this is his invasions of Russia and Spain.
@@rozakfassah7730 It's the american foot, probably based on the British one but then again Ben Franklin did hang around a lot in France so it could be the french one.
I know I've found a great channel when I don't mind re-watching a video I saw the day before. Thanks, John Green and everyone else on the CrashCourse team.
People forget how almost all the standard military ranks and organisational terms came from French. Many of Napoleon's military achievements came from organisational reform and innovation, not just tactical or strategic success. The concept of recruiting an army for national service rather than the private recruitment for a monarch is also something that came from the French Revolution democratising the idea of citizenship. Napoleon and France could afford to spend more of his men's lives because he recruited bigger and faster than his rivals.
The Latin origin shared by revolt and revolve is "revolvo," which simply means to "turn over" - the sense of a complete 360 degree turn seems to be pretty unique to English. From that perspective, revolt/revolution as a "turning over" of government by violent means makes more sense.
When I was in 1st grade the teacher read us a book that had napoleon in it, and when someone asked who he was she said “he was this short French guy who thought he owned land”.
However; aristocratic titles didn't necessarily mean feodal titles. For example; Soult, being Duke of Dalmatia, or Ney being Price of Muscovy, weren't really "entitled" to these regions. He did put his family into monarchical positions, because he believed this would stabilize Europe in the way that these states wouldn't take up arms against France again. So saying that Napoleon "revived" the ancien regime by returning aristocratic titles isn't really accurate.
Napoleon’s son Napoleon II was the grandson of Emperor Francis of Austria. Napoleon III’s wife was a legitimist (supported the House of Bourbon rather than Orleans) until her marriage. Jean-Christophe is not a direct descendant. He’s from a different line of the House of Bonaparte. Napoleon’s only legitimate child was Napoleon II who died at 21 from tuberculosis.
@@justinpachi3707 Alexandre Colonna Walewski was an illegitimate child of Napoleon. Issues of legitimacy today are whether or not the father was Napoleon. No longer do genealogists care whether or not the child was born out of wedlock. DNA evidence has proven that Napoleon was the father. Ergo, all descendants produced from this lineage are descendants of Napoleon. René Auberjonois, the actor who plays Otto on Deep Space 9, is a descendant of Napoleon's sister Caroline. While not a direct descendant of Napoleon, Rene is the most famous current member of the House of Bonaparte.
@@justinpachi3707 The laws of succession of the French Empire state that any descendant of Napoleon's brothers can become the head of the house. And by the way Napoleon has an actual direct descendant from his relationship with the Polish countess, they didn't know that until a few years ago because of DNA
Thanks so much for these videos. How you manage to pack to much information into 15 minutes is astonishing- great pics as well as great script. And you guys at crash course all seem so nice. Thanks again X
one of the islands he went to, st helena, is where my great great great grandparents lived, and my great great grandad was actually born in napoleons house :)
13:17 Napoleon could have easily won Leipzig. He almost turned it into an Austerlitz scale victory. The French Cavalry were in pursuit of Prussian and Russian outriders. They chose not to pursue. It was later revealed that this group contained Tsar Nicholas I and Prussian King Frederick Wilhelm III along with some of their top army command. Had the French captured this group, the battle would have been a massive decisive victory. Napoleon would have won with the Coalition forces in complete disarray with such a decapitating move. Napoleon can now negotiate from a position of strength here. With both monarchs as his prisoners, his Empire is secure with Prussia and Russia forced to make peace with the French. It’s likely that Poland revolts and the Grand duchy of Warsaw is reinstated. With a withdrawal from Spain Napoleon can now consolidate enough troops to defend what he has. The Austrians would be desperate to make peace as with Russia and Prussia beaten and humbled, Napoleon’s wrath is directed at them for their betrayal. Tsar Nicholas’s rule is likely destabilized as a result of his loss of prestige resulting in something of an earlier Decembrist revolt. Italy and Germany are firmly within France’s orbit and Britain would be forced to make peace. The public was already weary of war and a victorious Napoleon would only re-affirm his image as an unbeatable general. Napoleon without being poisoned of arsenic, would likely live into the 1830’s. Napoleon II would be crowned as King of Italy, Emperor of the French, and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. Based on what we know of him from otl, he was quite intelligent and charming and had a desire to go into the army. With a living Napoleon, his son is likely trained by him to keep the army together. France likely recovers pretty quickly here and industrialized rapidly. The French army is still intact here and industrialization is more rapid thanks to France controlling the resources (coal and iron ore) of the Rhineland, the riches of Italy. Napoleonic France doesn’t experience a demographic collapse since it industrializes on schedule and there is no Franco Prussian War.
That doesn't sound much like an astounding victory so much as them getting lucky by capturing two important dudes. Or, in reality, being unlucky in missing that opportunity. I wouldn't compare that with an actual victory on the field of battle or in a siege. The latter showcase the skill of the general and soldiers, the former just a bit of fortune.
@Barrack Obama Vlogs True. But you can decide what to think of it. Napoleon isn't remembered for his military acumen just cos people considered him extraordinarily lucky.
Koen Kamphorst They likely didn’t know who was in that group. Their main priority was likely to return to the battlefield rather than chasing what appeared to be lowly soldiers. The likely didn’t want to be straying too far away from friendly troops as well.
Mendicant Bias I mean if you go by that account Caesar’s stunning victory at Alesia was overrated. He won thanks to luck, and had the Gauls not lost their organization, or Caesar not been saved from an enemy soldier at the last second, Roman Gaul would have been lost. Who knows perhaps Pompey takes it upon himself to avenge Caesar here, and takes Gaul.
Constructive Criticism: I think a big mistake in this video is not actually clarifying what the Continental System was. You mention that Napoleon invaded Spain, Portugal, and Russia because of it, so it’s an important topic worth mentioning because it led to the invasions that brought down Napoleon.
I don´t understand why you say that Spain was thwarting his Continental System. The Spanish were more than happy to be part of it! Only Portugal opposed this (due to the Windsor Treaty, the oldest Military Alliance still active) and Spain was invaded because Napoleon wanted to conquer Portugal. The Portuguese Royal Family did flee to Brazil but the Spanish one was captured and forced to abdicate on his brother Josef. Because of this, Portugal was able to secure his colonies and Spain lost many of theirs to the British and France.
@@Mrdest211 no, at that moment he was speaking about Spain. He says that Spain wasn't respecting his continental blockade but it Portugal in fact that wasn't respecting it. He only talks about Russia after that.
Far from a champion my friend. Napoleon was no champion and was NOT good for France and turned out to be an incompetent, disastrous leader. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars (In 1800s amount). Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value (The US should still be paying France yearly payments for the Louisiana Purchase). Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep An incompetent general could not have produced victories such as that of the Italian campaign, one fought with a mutinuous army, underfed, underclothed, trudging along without being paid for months, facing unfavourable terrain against a numerically superior army. The Italian Campaign wasn't the work of a delusional madman.
Eh, not so fast, Hackman. Germany defeated Russia. So did Poland. And the Mongols. And Russia tends to perform less impressively once they try sallying out of their borders.
I think you could've mentioned Napoleon's American adventures since you mentioned his African ones. He sold off Louisiana and blundered into creating independence for Spanish America and Haiti. It's hard to really fully judge Napoleon. He did so much, and yet also he had such wild and crazy ambition far beyond what could've ever been possible, and it's hard to really understand why.
whenever i'm having a bad day, i can always rely on crash course to brighten things up, even if it is the french revolution... Thanks John, I'm glad you exist.
I really enjoy your presentations. I've got a request for a course. My belief is that our government has never (and never will) truly represented the people who live in this country. In fact, it was set up not to represent the majority of us. It has always represented political parties and influencers. How can we get a government that represents us, the people? What form of government would that be and how would it work?
@@MrHanderson91 I'm not looking for perfect. There just has to be something better, something that would actually represent WE the people more than what we have now
Congrats john greene on your hulu series based off your book! I havent read it yet but it looks great. I'm so happy for you as a long time fan of this UA-cam page and your work. You give me inspiration and hope.
The march on Russia was a little bit more complicated. The troops may have been from all of Europe but mostly because the peace treaties signed required the other states to support Napoleon with troops if asked. It wasn't popular and some resigned their commissions and fled to other countries to avoid it - fleeing to Russia, Britain or Spain.
@mikechrishill The British were ending slave trade because it was no longer economically viable, not because some moral standpoint. Also why Napoleon could reintroduce it when asked to because it gained him favours and to everyone who could see the writing on the wall it was going away anyway.
I feel like it's very anachronistic to say people were "shocked" by the Napoleonic code being harsh on women. France in the early 19th century was not Berkley, CA.
the car moves forward but that part of the wheel goes back to the same area it started say the floor or near the top of the wheel still not really going anywhere
History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever... Mariemaia Kushrenada, Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
I would actually argue that that video is very simplistic, mainly because the book it's based on is very simplistic. CGP grey is great but he's using bad source materials.
Fredrik Dunge the model it presents is indeed just one model which leaves many things unexplained. That is also true of, say, the idea that atoms want to have 8 electrons in their valence shell. All models are incomplete; some models are useful. So would you say that the model of incentives presented in Rules for Rulers is not useful?
Europe misses him so much. He was in advance for his time. We would have today an United Europe, without two bloody world wars, and Europe would be respected?
Napoleon Bonaparte was of Italian descent. Napoleon's family was of Italian origin. His paternal ancestors, the Buonapartes, descended from a minor Tuscan noble family that emigrated to Corsica in the 16th century and his maternal ancestors, the Ramolinos, descended from a minor Genoese noble family.
I remember learning about the French Revolution in my 10th grade history class I thought it was so cool that a random war started cause the king let them starve
I think it’s important to mention that Napoléon also reinstated slavery in May 1802 after it had been abolished in the French colonies in 1794. He did this to gain support from the colonial nobility and other countries. A pretty terrible thing to do, imo
Yes! The larger point that Napoleon was NOT good for France and turned out to be an incompetent, disastrous leader. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars (In 1800s amount). Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value (The US should still be paying France yearly payments for the Louisiana Purchase). Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
While this video is fantastic, you guys missed some of the most important things that happened in Napoleon's life, like the awkward but funny dance he did in front of everybody, or when he voiced support for a candidate in an election and told everyone to Vote for Pedro. I'm assuming those are big things, or else they wouldn't have included them in that movie about his life that came out in 2004.
The metric system is something the rest of the world uses to measure, it'd be nice if Americans stopped using the Imperial system, it's very confusing. Nationalised health care is great too! :D
The US doesn't use Imperial and never has, it's 'US customary units' (official name) or SAE (common name). Imperial was a standardization done in Britain in the early 19th century, 50 years after the American revolution, which took English units (which is basically what the US was using at the time) and redefined them. That's why Imperial gallons are different from US gallons and Imperial pints are 20 ounces while US are 16 along with several other differences. US units are also all defined using metric units (and have been since 1959, and several decades earlier for length and weight) so conversions aren't hard or confusing for anyone familiar with them or with access to google and a spare 5 seconds. For most people who grew up using SAE metric is the unfamiliar and odd one that's hard to learn with all those prefixes to memorize and the potential for ambiguity and mistakes you get with deci and Deca or milli and Mega. You're completely right about single payer healthcare.
@@bottypaige8165 I didn't realise that US vs UK measurements are actually different even with the same names. Though in truth we've been using the metric system in the UK more and more over the years anyway. Imperial makes no sense to me whatsoever. Question: why do I still hear Americans refer to their measurement system as "Imperial" if it's not the same as the old British system?
@@xJavelin1 tl;dr It's a simple name that's popular, just like with people calling SI 'metric' instead of its official name. It just sounds better and gets used more often. I don't think the official name is really something a lot of people learn in school. I certainly can't remember hearing the term 'US customary units' when I was kid. I heard a bunch of other ones though, common, regular, normal, American, SAE and yes Imperial but all of those labels only ever get used in the context of differentiating from metric. SAE is the only one most people are likely to see written down on something, if they go to buy a packaged set of wrenches (spanners) or sockets the options are metric or SAE. And since metric is labelled in whole millimeters and SAE are in fractions of an inch you don't even need the names you just call them a 3/8ths end wrench or a 9 mil socket. A collective term is rarely used in normal conversation. A common thing to hear might be, '100 Kilometres? How far is that in miles?' or '168 cm? How tall is that in feet?' Not a lot of people go around calling it Imperial unless they are debating Imperial vs metric online.
@@bottypaige8165 That makes sense. Since Imperial measurements have slowly fallen out of favour in the UK there are only certain times they are commonly used: miles and sometimes yards (for distance); pints (for beer or blood); and stones & pounds for weights (usually human weights). Though strangely in that case we'd always say eg 10 stone, six lbs instead of (don't know the conversion) 112 lbs the way Americans do.
The first time i watched these crash course histories i thought they were very good, more and more now i see the angles they take, they're fine but man, take it with a few grains of salt. Listen to the audiobooks of Will Durant if you want proper history
I was always puzzled how people procreated in the past. But during your courses I found out that in history there were women too. Never learned that at school.
To say Napoleon "wanted" to conquer Europe is a bit much. Other countries declared war on HIM. Then he beat them. Over and over. Vienna was captured TWICE, sometimes less than a year after it declared war on the French Empire.
That said, it wouldn't exactly be accurate to describe Napoleon as someone who solely defended his country. The terms he imposed on the nations that he defeated weren't exactly something that helped usher peace.
@@putbye1 true. One of his flaws for sure. But still. After trouncing his opponents so well and so decisively, it's not surprising his terms were harsh. Austra, Prussia, Russia (first time) were in no position to say no.
My grand-parents used to have a small statue of NAPOLEON BONAPARTE on the buffet in their livingroom. My grand grand father was a CORSICAN like Napoleon. So, yes, NAPOLEON was an important figure for my family and most of the poor people of France. Now some remarks about this documentary: the author completely ignored the role of FREE-MACONERY in Napoleon's destiny, despite the facts that (even if there is no proof that he was a freemacon) he was surrounded by known freemacons : his father was one, his brother also, his wife JOSEFINE was part of free-maconery like most of his close collaborators. Behind the grandiose public shows, NAPOLEON was serving the free-maconery core values ( liberty, equality, fraternity) against the 2 arms of SATAN: the monarchy & the catholic roman church. But the ideology of free-maconery had to accomodate with the contingencies of the world. Even rational humanist ideas can remain misunderstood & rejected by the people ( uneducated members of the popular classes). Such as the METRIC SYSTEM, which is not a tyrany forced on Anglosaxon culture, but a smart way of measurement using a objective unit called the METER = (length of Earth's meridian) / 40 000 000 ! ( which METRE ETALON deposited in Sevres France, is a modele ) introducing the planet Earth's size into our daily life, instead of an archaic system based on the size of the king's THUMB. Hope the author will reply to my comments ( that i would be please to discuss)
We had a technical issue with the video today, and had to re-upload it. Sorry for any link confusion.
Thank you ♥️
I don't mind watching it twice. 😀
No worries no confusion at all
Thanks for sharing a beautiful video again ..
you are the best ..
Hats off to You Crash Course
So the TV test pattern wasn't intentional, even though it had the texture overlay? Good, because I didn't get it 😄
I'm just happy UA-cam didn't pull it for [Insert terrible excuse here]
Love how as a historian, every time you mention Napoleon, you are legally obligated to tell people that he wasn't actually that short.
The thing is, if he was small as a kid, he would feel short all of his life. Also if he was 5'7" or average for the day, then he was probably among the shortest people in the room whenever he was among the rich and powerful people who were his bureaucrats and his generals. There was some upward mobility in France at the time, but as usual in history it was mostly mobility from the upper middle class taking spots vacated by the upper upper class.
@@paulpeterson4216 I'd take that him being mocked as a short kid with a grain of salt. He was gaunt, true. I've read a number of descriptions and he was mocked for a number of things; his unpronounceable last name, being a foreigner, his family's little income. One child insulted Napoléon's late father as a Corsican nationalist and thus a traitor - young Napoléon challenged him to a duel. Yet not much about his height. He might have been small framed but most kids are - they're kids. Crash Course got a number of things wrong in the video anyway (I'll recheck that one). However, the aforementioned torments had a much bigger effect on his attitude.
And he would have been slightly above average so your assertion he was the shortest man in the room isn't true. True, his Old Guard were tall, but that's one specific unit. His adversary Horatio Nelson was ~164 cm or 5'4". The Archduke Charles, one of Napoléon's most persistent and overlooked adversaries was ~158 or 5'2". Both definitely shorter than Napoléon. The Duke of Wellington is either centimeters slightly shorter or slightly taller depending on what description you believe but hardly towering over Napoléon as pop culture suggests. So if anyone's height is in question it's actually other generals.
Although it is continually rationalized, Napoleon Syndrome plays out as a myth.
@@Pelopen3bc Yes but. I agree that the Napoleon complex is misnamed, his height was almost certainly not the driving factor in his psychology. That said, I was not comparing his height to the Army writ large, the rank and file were almost certainly a good cross section of the nation, given that the French drafted virtually an entire generation into the army. The average French peasant; however, was likely shorter than the average French, wealthy, upper-middle class, denizen of Napoleon's court. Wealth is generational, and most of his generals came from wealth, even if not the nobility. With wealth comes things like always having enough food and other advantages, including some genetic advantages, as the basis for most wealth in early modern Europe was a tendency of your ancestors to have been successful warriors, indeed likely knights, because they were big and strong enough to seize wealth.
That said, I don't want to say he was feeling like Herve Velasquez, but in his social circle he was almost certainly below average in height. The idea of the Napoleon complex is wrong, but there has been a cottage industry for a century in "debunking" the "myth" and the fact that he was likely average height AT BEST, and likely shorter than most of his peers, is not convenient for people who need to debunk everything about the N complex. (Not saying you)
@@paulpeterson4216 It's possible there was a differential in heights but not certain, we do know Napoléon _was_ taller than the average French peasant. Some of his generals came from wealth but others didn't. His best, Masséna, Lannes, and Davout, were either outright commoners or didn't come from money. Ney was the son of a cooper. The old aristocracy _was_ being replaced, even if a few remained.
About his social circle, you can't say he was "almost certainly". Some we happen to know are taller, some we happen to know are shorter, some we'd need to dig up archives. You'd need to find their average and that conjecture would need to be supported. He was not "at best" average height; he was taller. 5'7" is taller than 5'5". Full stop. And one important question: why would Napoléon _especially_ have problems with height but the well-documented generals who were much shorter than him didn't?
You don't need to debunk Napoleon Complex. It must be proven first.
And one thing I forgot to mention before: despite the hostility he faced in his school days, Napoléon actually forgave them and looked back on his school days (at Brienne) with nostalgia. He did remember individuals who were kind to him and later rewarded them. But during the Revolution he violated orders to help a former school boy adversary avoid imprisonment. Despite his depression during Brienne, and retaining his disdain for most aristocrats, he oddly _wasn't_ bitter about his youth.
The new shorty should be 5 foot Alsxander the Great
Funny how this video went down and came back a second time, fitting for a video on Napoleon
Haha haha i get it👍😂
@@greatpretender680 lmaaaoaooo
Lol....you did a funny
coincidence is funny yea
"When your leaders start talking about reviving the glory of the Roman Empire...get nervous!"
The founding fathers of the United States of America sure loved them an image of the glory of ancient Rome. Just sayin'
@@XaurielZ
And so?
And so what?
@@XaurielZ
And so what? What is it supposed to mean?
Probably that the perceived ancient glory of Rome is highly sought by authority as an unreproachable expression of righteous justification of their rule, which is probably why the Capitol building has a mural of Washington ascending to godhood
Very rarely can you say that one man single handedly changed the world. Napoleon is one of them.
Andrew Farrell Yes when you get nitpicky of course Napoleon couldn’t do anything alone. But very few times can you say that a mans ideas shaped the world in some way.
Andrew Farrell And yes, I do think Napoleon changed the world alone. When he came back from exile he literally gathered an army of like 200,000 soldiers and took back France. If that doesn’t show how much power and respect you command then I don’t know what does. Another thing is that Napoleon was a brilliant strategist using new tactics with state of the art weaponry.
@@MortalWombat4480 him and his *200,000* strong army retook France alone
Magnus Peacock I’m saying it’s important because he inspired his men even despite them fighting for a different french government. That’s how powerful Napoleon was.
@@MortalWombat4480 but to say he did it alone would be a bit disingenuous
To add to the idea about how artists included Napoleon in their work, Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony, Sinfonia Eroica (Heroic Symphony), was originally titled Sinfonia Buonaparte. Beethoven was enamored with Napoleon’s anti-monarchical ideals and believed strongly in the idea of democracy. However, when Napoleon named himself Emperor, Beethoven revoked the dedication, ripping the title page of his score in half, and then he retitled it to Eroica. Another copy of the original title page has two subtitles, “intitolata Bonaparte” (“Titled Bonaparte”), and “Greschriben auf Bonaparte” (“Written for Bonaparte”), scratched out.
It was also subtitled "In memory of a great man"
It's cool how he actually acknowledged Napoleon's flaws and changed his views. I imagine a lot of people would stay fanatically devoted to certain leaders, regardless of how cruel or hypocritical they get.
@@cometmoon4485 I would choose Napoleon the cruel dictator 10000 times over the government of my country.
This is similar to the story of Ugo Foscolo, an important Italian poet. He addressed an ode to Napoleon, seen as the carrier of the principles of the revolution but after the Treaty of Campoformio by which Napoleon handed Venice, his town, over to the Austrians he felt betrayed and had disdain and resentment. Since this event, Foscolo showed himself hostile to any pro-Parisian government. (sorry for my poor english but I wanted to tell this story)
@@jupiter8512 Which country?
The Napoleonic invasion of Spain gave English the word "guerrilla" war. It described the Spanish resistance fighters who hide in the rural areas and attacked the invaders in small raids. Guerrilla is Spanish for "Little War".
So Guerrilla war is a Little War War? Or a war similar to the Guerrilla war in Spain?
@@fenhen "Guerra" is "war", "guerrilla" is "little war". Therefore, yes, a "guerrilla war" is a "little war war". :)
Not quite, "guerrilla" refers to an unorganized or paramilitary group and not the act of making war. In spanish we even have the phrase "guerra de guerrilas" or guerrilla war. I guess you can say "guerrita" to refer to an small war but no one says that.
@TacticusPrime wow! Never thought of that...
Ohhhhhhhhhhhh.... so.... nothing to do with the animal then!
"If you're gonna live in a dictatorship you at least want to be dictated by the dictator, not some brother"
Napoleon’s brother’s weren’t really incompetent except for Jerome. Louis was popular in Holland and ruled pretty well. He couldn’t really enforce the Continental system and was removed by Napoleon. Had Napoleon kept Louis on the throne, the Dutch would likely have been more amenable to Napoleon. Joseph as King of Naples enacted land reform and helped alleviate the Kingdom’s bankruptcy and provided relief to the peasantry by liquidating many church lands whom the government didn’t collect taxes on. Many of these lands were redistributed to the peasantry. Lucien Bonaparte was instrumental in Napoleon’s coup against the incompetent Directory.
Justin Pachi this is true. And by placing family members on the thrones of foreign countries Napoleon sought to create the one thing he never really had: allies. All the old monarchies of Europe never accepted him as one of their own out of fear.
@@justinpachi3707 Napoleon was NOT good for France or Europe, so in the end, Napoleon actually proved to be an incompetent, disastrous leader.. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars. Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value. Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep You're not wrong, but kind of missing the point of this episode and the story behind it. French people (as far as I can tell from my french family) see Napoleon as a national hero for all he archieved for France. His failings aren't ignored - they're part of the story, but make him rather more relateable. A commoner who reached the top, turned chaos into order and achieved lots of things - but also had human failings.
I thought John did a good job showing, that he created more than wars. That the revolution and its aftermath were drenched in blood, but also brought changes he spearheaded, which reformed not only france, but all of europe and much of the world.
@@lsatep your comment is probably the first so long comment I've read :) thank you for such an interesting point of view.
Here in Russia, despite the fact that he killed thousands of our ancestors, our historical propaganda works for Napoleon glory and greatness too.
I suppose, it's also enough beneficial for us, as we won the most powerful army and empire in the world.
Also good side, that our occupation no France gave our aristocracy view, how Europe is different then Russia and it caused the December Revolution, which was directed towards Europeisation of Russia. But unfortunately it has collapsed and all aristocratic officers were imprisoned.
Quote by Napoleon Bonaparte: "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
As a French, I grew up with a mostly positive image of Napoleon, because I don't recall school teaching us all the bad things he did. We learned about the Napoleon Code ("Code Civil" over here, which was also followed by many codes of criminal law, commercial law, etc.), how he was obsessed by the Roman Empire and very war-driven. But honestly, he was at worst framed as an enlightened despot. Didn't help that I had a father who practically worshipped him. My point is mostly that in the last five years I've found out how horrible he was, and also how much of Europe sees him as a tyran. Ask a french and a british about Napoleon, opinions will be really different :').
At the end of the day, he was probably that complex. A complete dictator, who did many good things. To be honest, I think he was exactly what the nation needed at that moment. History is an interesting discipline because, as objective as you try to be, there is always opinion. Anyway, great video as always, I love how you always update us on women and don't invisibilize them as has always been the case in all history classes i've ever taken.
I really enjoyed reading your take on this video.
@@EJ-sp9gf that is such a sweet comment, did not expect this
Napoleon did a lot of bad things, and he did a lot of good things. But whether you think he was a tyrant or a hero or a bit of both it can't be denied that he left an enduring mark on the world.
When the French do it is called looting, when the British do it is called safekeeping.
When the Democrats do it, it's called redistbution of weatlh
@@mikeesposito8745 lol actually laughed a bit
@@mikeesposito8745
When super-rich white men do it, it's called Wednesday.
@@cometmoon4485 My favourite comment ever.
Billionnaires are the dictators of our days.
Britain didn't blast off the nose on the Sphynx or desecrate sites.
"Something Europeans do like soccer and ensuring all citizens have healthcare"
Ooh, shots fired.
Well we don't all like soccer but we do like free healthcare.
Shots fired? That's very American... ;)
Canada looked over again xD
@victor hoang
Shots fired indeed. It's called football!
Americans all have a tiny archeologist inside them, as they are terrible at naming things.
That's the best explanation I have as to why they use the term football for a game that would be better described by the term "arm pit eg"... :D
Actually, the "imperial system" is pretty much american nationalistic backwardness. The whole world uses metric now, except for the US.
That moment when you need 7 coalitions to take down one man
And only after losing just couple of 600,000 troops, were they able to take him down
Well, when one is the best general on the planet, it is hard for one to be defeated, until the rest of the world adapts.
Technically 6 - 5 coalitions since the first two were the French Revolutionary Wars.
Power of friendship, it always takes 5-6 power rangers to take down one big monster
Just one man? Didn't he at least have a cook? ;)
It took seven (or five or six, whatever) coalitions to take down one man - together with millions of others, French and non-French, who were with him.
4:20 Interestingly, the German word for emperor is also stemming fom Caesar: "Kaiser". Of course that makes sense as well, considering the Holy Roman Empire understood itself as the continuation of the OG Roman Empire.
The word emperor is from Latin too. Imperator was a plural form of preator. And preator meant a military and political figure, responsible of the well being and expanditure of a certain land or situation.
@@subutaynoyan5372 I don't believe the first part is true
@@TheLuuuuuc Really? Because whenever a member of the senate was having a bunch of legions for a purpose, wasn't he called imperator? A preator can lead an army, an imperator can lead a huge army if memory serves.
@@subutaynoyan5372 That's totally wrong. First the plural of praetor is praetores (In Latin the plural is never formed by prefix), second praetor originates from prae-ire, "move in front of [sb./sth.]." On the other hand, imperator is the person who reigns over an imperium. Imperium comes from the word imperare, which translates to ruling.
@@Ruhrpottpatriot Well, might be I'm wrong I'm not that sure of it
Well actually, Napoleon invaded Russia not because he wanted to conquer her, but make her to join to the continental blockade of England.
You mean “um, actually”
Thank you, someone understands it. Napoléon understood the logistical nightmare that was ruling all of the Russias and did not envy that headache. His plan was to have a major victory and force Emperor Alexander to comply with probably a modified version of the Treaty of Tilsit.
The tsar trying to invade a Polish State under Napoleon's protection (Grand Duchy of Warsaw) had a lot to do with it too !
Everything in this video is very simplified to the point of sometimes being inaccurate.
Like saying Napoleon "wanted to conquer Europe", while he actually really did it on self-defense as European monarchies declared war on France because they hated seeing a commoner on the throne.
Or acting like the muslim population of early 19th century Egypt cared about the ancient pagan artifacts the French recovered from their land. In reality they had so little respect for ancient artifacts they even used them as building material (that's how the Rosetta stone was found by the French in the ruins of a recent military fort).
He said "especially because Russia opted out of his continental system." The continental system was that embargo you are talking about. So he didn't forget it.
I admired Napoleon a lot when I was a kid, I was a Francophile, and because of it I got very interested in studying world history.
Napoleon achieved many things and shaped history I think that is something to be admired.
Having lived in several parts of the world, I see a very distinct dichotomy in how Napoleon is perceived. In French-speaking countries, he is still to this day glorified, exalted and idolized as a liberator, a forward-thinker, a military genius and an inspiration. In English-speaking countries, he is reviled, hated, dismissed as a blood-thirsty, conquer-happy demagogue.
Luckily, they banished him to an island.
BUT HE CAME BACK!
Luckily, they banished him to another island.
A rather more remote one, this time ;P
Not really lucky though, Napoleon was a better ruled than most of the leaders of Europe at the time. the only one who might have been a better ruled than Napoleon was Jean Baptist Bernadotte, once one of Napoleon's general (and the guy who planned the Leipzig campaign against him). Everyone else went back to their pre napoleonic corrupt systems. Except Britain who never left this corrupt pre napoleonic system. What made Sweden so great in the coming century is that they kept their Napoleonic monarch and his reforms.
He came back again. They banished him to a third island. That one burned, fell over, and he came back. But the fourth island worked!
DontMockMySmock but then he wrote a book
Luckily to sheep like you.
Napoleon was an anti villain, one of the most interesting characters in history
He was a hero, he was a chance for European unity. First one since Charlemagne. Because the British managed to turn everyone agaisnt him we had to wait another century before another chance (the German concept of Mittleeuropa when they looked on the verge of winning ww1) and when that failed another century. But Europe shall be united.
@@DaDunge Well in a sense yeah, he's defiently a complicated person kinda hard to call him or good or bad bur regardless he was an boss
@@DaDunge As a French I disagree, there are only two people that dream of United Europe :
- France
- Germany
In both cases it's because we are the two children of Charlemagne, and in both cases if it happens, this unification would be under the rule of the country that makes it. Just look at how Napoléon started to adapt all the countries to the French standards in less than 10 years.
@@tonyhawk94 You are incorrect, there have been plenty of pan europeanists from other countries. I myself am neither from France nor Germany,
@@DaDunge A hero? He was a horrible, power-hungry, totalitarianist man. How could he be a hero?
As a person who struggles with history and always has history teachers who end up just rambling in trying to connect points together.
Putting it in a timeline is a godsend
I (rarely) disagree with you John, because your videos are very good at capturing a concept's essence, but I have to speak up.
Napoleon, a lay man, and his rise to power represented an enormous threat to the Ancièn Régime, or the old monarchical ways of Europe. If I'm not mistaken, every war Napoleon fought (coalitions 3-7) was started by the British or the Austrians. Virtually every monarchy in Europe wanted him gone, and they were willing to fight to see that goal achieved. Portraying Napoleon as a bloodthirsty conqueror is just a little bit disingenuous; at most one could say he used the impending threat of invasion as an excuse to conquer and expand the buffer zone around France. The only exception to this is his invasions of Russia and Spain.
About the height: The English measure of foot was shorter than the French measure of foot. And thus: English propaganda-war at its finest!
Which one is the universal 'foot' today? The French one or the English one?
@@rozakfassah7730 There is no "universal foot" because Napoleon made everyone use Meters. Probably to obscure how short he was.
@@nessesaryschoolthing so where did 1 foot = 0.3048 meters come from?
@@rozakfassah7730 That's just it: it's complete nonsense. Nobody knows how long a meter is, it's incomprehensible.
@@rozakfassah7730 It's the american foot, probably based on the British one but then again Ben Franklin did hang around a lot in France so it could be the french one.
General at 24. It’s hard to put my mind around that, imagine that happening today.
I know I've found a great channel when I don't mind re-watching a video I saw the day before. Thanks, John Green and everyone else on the CrashCourse team.
People forget how almost all the standard military ranks and organisational terms came from French. Many of Napoleon's military achievements came from organisational reform and innovation, not just tactical or strategic success. The concept of recruiting an army for national service rather than the private recruitment for a monarch is also something that came from the French Revolution democratising the idea of citizenship. Napoleon and France could afford to spend more of his men's lives because he recruited bigger and faster than his rivals.
The Latin origin shared by revolt and revolve is "revolvo," which simply means to "turn over" - the sense of a complete 360 degree turn seems to be pretty unique to English. From that perspective, revolt/revolution as a "turning over" of government by violent means makes more sense.
When I was in 1st grade the teacher read us a book that had napoleon in it, and when someone asked who he was she said “he was this short French guy who thought he owned land”.
Well, that little guy ruled Europe for a long time.
Stupid teacher.
However; aristocratic titles didn't necessarily mean feodal titles. For example; Soult, being Duke of Dalmatia, or Ney being Price of Muscovy, weren't really "entitled" to these regions. He did put his family into monarchical positions, because he believed this would stabilize Europe in the way that these states wouldn't take up arms against France again. So saying that Napoleon "revived" the ancien regime by returning aristocratic titles isn't really accurate.
The main reason I learned about the place of Napoleon's defeat was ABBA
You know, Napoleon's descendant Jean Christophe is recently married to a Habsburg.
Napoleon’s son Napoleon II was the grandson of Emperor Francis of Austria. Napoleon III’s wife was a legitimist (supported the House of Bourbon rather than Orleans) until her marriage.
Jean-Christophe is not a direct descendant. He’s from a different line of the House of Bonaparte. Napoleon’s only legitimate child was Napoleon II who died at 21 from tuberculosis.
@@justinpachi3707
Alexandre Colonna Walewski was an illegitimate child of Napoleon. Issues of legitimacy today are whether or not the father was Napoleon. No longer do genealogists care whether or not the child was born out of wedlock. DNA evidence has proven that Napoleon was the father. Ergo, all descendants produced from this lineage are descendants of Napoleon.
René Auberjonois, the actor who plays Otto on Deep Space 9, is a descendant of Napoleon's sister Caroline. While not a direct descendant of Napoleon, Rene is the most famous current member of the House of Bonaparte.
@@justinpachi3707 The laws of succession of the French Empire state that any descendant of Napoleon's brothers can become the head of the house.
And by the way Napoleon has an actual direct descendant from his relationship with the Polish countess, they didn't know that until a few years ago because of DNA
Guillotine them
@@richardsmall2855 the Bonaparte are illegitimate in their lunacy. The legitimate one took Napoleon as a name
I love Napoleon! Gosh right!
Me too!
Nous aussiii
Thanks so much for these videos. How you manage to pack to much information into 15 minutes is astonishing- great pics as well as great script. And you guys at crash course all seem so nice. Thanks again X
one of the islands he went to, st helena, is where my great great great grandparents lived, and my great great grandad was actually born in napoleons house :)
I have a history test tomorrow and I have to thank you because you made the subject easier/more enhanced
13:17
Napoleon could have easily won Leipzig. He almost turned it into an Austerlitz scale victory. The French Cavalry were in pursuit of Prussian and Russian outriders. They chose not to pursue. It was later revealed that this group contained Tsar Nicholas I and Prussian King Frederick Wilhelm III along with some of their top army command. Had the French captured this group, the battle would have been a massive decisive victory. Napoleon would have won with the Coalition forces in complete disarray with such a decapitating move. Napoleon can now negotiate from a position of strength here. With both monarchs as his prisoners, his Empire is secure with Prussia and Russia forced to make peace with the French. It’s likely that Poland revolts and the Grand duchy of Warsaw is reinstated. With a withdrawal from Spain Napoleon can now consolidate enough troops to defend what he has.
The Austrians would be desperate to make peace as with Russia and Prussia beaten and humbled, Napoleon’s wrath is directed at them for their betrayal. Tsar Nicholas’s rule is likely destabilized as a result of his loss of prestige resulting in something of an earlier Decembrist revolt.
Italy and Germany are firmly within France’s orbit and Britain would be forced to make peace. The public was already weary of war and a victorious Napoleon would only re-affirm his image as an unbeatable general. Napoleon without being poisoned of arsenic, would likely live into the 1830’s.
Napoleon II would be crowned as King of Italy, Emperor of the French, and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine. Based on what we know of him from otl, he was quite intelligent and charming and had a desire to go into the army. With a living Napoleon, his son is likely trained by him to keep the army together. France likely recovers pretty quickly here and industrialized rapidly. The French army is still intact here and industrialization is more rapid thanks to France controlling the resources (coal and iron ore) of the Rhineland, the riches of Italy. Napoleonic France doesn’t experience a demographic collapse since it industrializes on schedule and there is no Franco Prussian War.
Okay. So why did they give up?
That doesn't sound much like an astounding victory so much as them getting lucky by capturing two important dudes. Or, in reality, being unlucky in missing that opportunity. I wouldn't compare that with an actual victory on the field of battle or in a siege. The latter showcase the skill of the general and soldiers, the former just a bit of fortune.
@Barrack Obama Vlogs True. But you can decide what to think of it. Napoleon isn't remembered for his military acumen just cos people considered him extraordinarily lucky.
Koen Kamphorst
They likely didn’t know who was in that group. Their main priority was likely to return to the battlefield rather than chasing what appeared to be lowly soldiers. The likely didn’t want to be straying too far away from friendly troops as well.
Mendicant Bias
I mean if you go by that account Caesar’s stunning victory at Alesia was overrated. He won thanks to luck, and had the Gauls not lost their organization, or Caesar not been saved from an enemy soldier at the last second, Roman Gaul would have been lost. Who knows perhaps Pompey takes it upon himself to avenge Caesar here, and takes Gaul.
there's nothing we can do
Constructive Criticism: I think a big mistake in this video is not actually clarifying what the Continental System was. You mention that Napoleon invaded Spain, Portugal, and Russia because of it, so it’s an important topic worth mentioning because it led to the invasions that brought down Napoleon.
I don´t understand why you say that Spain was thwarting his Continental System. The Spanish were more than happy to be part of it! Only Portugal opposed this (due to the Windsor Treaty, the oldest Military Alliance still active) and Spain was invaded because Napoleon wanted to conquer Portugal. The Portuguese Royal Family did flee to Brazil but the Spanish one was captured and forced to abdicate on his brother Josef. Because of this, Portugal was able to secure his colonies and Spain lost many of theirs to the British and France.
The video's talking about Russia at that point, not Spain.
@@Mrdest211 no, at that moment he was speaking about Spain. He says that Spain wasn't respecting his continental blockade but it Portugal in fact that wasn't respecting it. He only talks about Russia after that.
@Asier Linazasoro the Portuguese royal family fled to Brazil in 1807
Spanish were splitted between the cities and the countryside. Cities were with Napoleon, and countryside were against him.
Napoleon is my favorite historical leader. The true definition of chances makes champions
Far from a champion my friend. Napoleon was no champion and was NOT good for France and turned out to be an incompetent, disastrous leader. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars (In 1800s amount). Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value (The US should still be paying France yearly payments for the Louisiana Purchase). Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
@@lsatep An incompetent general could not have produced victories such as that of the Italian campaign, one fought with a mutinuous army, underfed, underclothed, trudging along without being paid for months, facing unfavourable terrain against a numerically superior army. The Italian Campaign wasn't the work of a delusional madman.
He was also hugely sexist.
@@arididomenico6974 XVIII century gonna be XVIII century.
13:48 I'm in disbelief how poetic history can be sometimes
my history test is tomorrow. i am about to cry... this is too much for my small brain.
*Any war ensues Europe*
Random country: Yaayy! I am winning!
Russia: I am going to do what's called a Pro Gamer Move -
Eh, not so fast, Hackman. Germany defeated Russia. So did Poland. And the Mongols. And Russia tends to perform less impressively once they try sallying out of their borders.
If Dr. Who ever comes and asks me to time travel, I'd say, "We have to pick up John Green first!"
Great work John!
'My enemies are many....
My equals are NONE.'
I think you could've mentioned Napoleon's American adventures since you mentioned his African ones. He sold off Louisiana and blundered into creating independence for Spanish America and Haiti.
It's hard to really fully judge Napoleon. He did so much, and yet also he had such wild and crazy ambition far beyond what could've ever been possible, and it's hard to really understand why.
You called?
hi
Bonjour
@@niggapoleonsurrenderparte7184 this entire comment thread had me laughing so hard--
truly helped me to study for a history test
whenever i'm having a bad day, i can always rely on crash course to brighten things up, even if it is the french revolution...
Thanks John, I'm glad you exist.
I really enjoy your presentations. I've got a request for a course. My belief is that our government has never (and never will) truly represented the people who live in this country. In fact, it was set up not to represent the majority of us. It has always represented political parties and influencers. How can we get a government that represents us, the people? What form of government would that be and how would it work?
There is no perfect political system.
@@MrHanderson91 I'm not looking for perfect. There just has to be something better, something that would actually represent WE the people more than what we have now
Yeah, I remember French revolution.
Congrats john greene on your hulu series based off your book! I havent read it yet but it looks great. I'm so happy for you as a long time fan of this UA-cam page and your work. You give me inspiration and hope.
The march on Russia was a little bit more complicated. The troops may have been from all of Europe but mostly because the peace treaties signed required the other states to support Napoleon with troops if asked. It wasn't popular and some resigned their commissions and fled to other countries to avoid it - fleeing to Russia, Britain or Spain.
Anyone else notice how Johns speaking slower than in the past crash course videos?
Awesomely summarised, Crash Course!
I always kinda liked napoleon... he seem like someone who actually wanted to make his country better, and wasn't in it purely for power
And technically it wasn't even his country.
Epsilon Jay ɛɈ ⸋ Ȣ ƪ ϡ ϧ Ϯ ϗ ƕ ⸈ It was only recently part of France at the time though.
@@user-yv2cz8oj1k Technically it was. Corsica was annexed by France before he was born so he was born a French citizen.
@mikechrishill The British were ending slave trade because it was no longer economically viable, not because some moral standpoint. Also why Napoleon could reintroduce it when asked to because it gained him favours and to everyone who could see the writing on the wall it was going away anyway.
He thought as his destiny and the destiny of France was the same thing, he genuinely care for the well being of the country !
I feel like it's very anachronistic to say people were "shocked" by the Napoleonic code being harsh on women. France in the early 19th century was not Berkley, CA.
Another great one John!
Anyone else waiting for a Mongols reference when talking about Russia? No? Just me? Ok then.
"It literally means a full turn of 360 degrees, like, you end a revolution where you started out." And yet wheels.
the car moves forward but that part of the wheel goes back to the same area it started say the floor or near the top of the wheel still not really going anywhere
Thank you for helping me succeed in my online history class.
Corsets did not exist before the Victorian era and their predecessors, stays, were definetly worn during Napoleon's time.
I set the video speed to 1.25...just for the good ol' days...
Such a good show!!! John green is awesome!
Awesome! I get to see this twice today! ^_^
History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace, and revolution continue on forever... Mariemaia Kushrenada, Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
remember when John Green was so energetic and funny. Not that he is not know but he is kind of old. Great content helped me get a 100 on my test.
Love your show man!
Rules for Rulers by CGP Grey is a great explanation of why Napoleon sought the support of the Catholic Church.
I would actually argue that that video is very simplistic, mainly because the book it's based on is very simplistic. CGP grey is great but he's using bad source materials.
Fredrik Dunge the model it presents is indeed just one model which leaves many things unexplained.
That is also true of, say, the idea that atoms want to have 8 electrons in their valence shell. All models are incomplete; some models are useful.
So would you say that the model of incentives presented in Rules for Rulers is not useful?
@@armorsmith43 Human behaviour is not the same as a scientific theory.
Long live the Emperor!
Europe misses him so much. He was in advance for his time. We would have today an United Europe, without two bloody world wars, and Europe would be respected?
Napoleon Bonaparte was of Italian descent.
Napoleon's family was of Italian origin. His paternal ancestors, the Buonapartes, descended from a minor Tuscan noble family that emigrated to Corsica in the 16th century and his maternal ancestors, the Ramolinos, descended from a minor Genoese noble family.
14:35 Funny you should mention that because the British did that on the next order of magnitude later.
I needed this to read The Count of Mounte Cristo.
I remember learning about the French Revolution in my 10th grade history class I thought it was so cool that a random war started cause the king let them starve
Napoleon, one of the best military general ! So many country for stopping him... 😍
Love that line infantry battle animation
I love how hungary is never mentioned in this series.
Learning is supposed to be fun, and you show us how it’s done! Thanks for your wonderful work.
I think it’s important to mention that Napoléon also reinstated slavery in May 1802 after it had been abolished in the French colonies in 1794. He did this to gain support from the colonial nobility and other countries.
A pretty terrible thing to do, imo
Yes! The larger point that Napoleon was NOT good for France and turned out to be an incompetent, disastrous leader. Napoleon left France occupied, defeated, and never able to recover from defeat. Under Napoleon, the enemy was fighting on French soil closing in on Paris. Napoleon got ripped-off by the United States in the Louisiana Purchase, costing France millions of dollars (In 1800s amount). Napoleon was responsible for some of the worst military disasters in history that caused the lives of millions of Frenchmen. Egypt/Syria was a disaster. Spain was a disaster. Russia was the worst disaster in military history. Leipzig was a disaster. Waterloo was a disaster. France had its problems before Napoleon, but it was still, by far, the most powerful army in Europe. Napoleon inherited a superb war machine from the most powerful state in Continental Europe. Many times Napoleon, with a powerful army that could out-gun the enemy, would just barely win through sheer numbers while being a colossal drain on his soldiers and country. To a large extent, his tactics were irrelevant, as Napoleon could field outrageous numbers of troops and guns who could suffer losses that were easily replaceable by France's vast population and military resources. Napoleon is even quoted as saying "You cannot defeat me, I spend 30 000 lives a month." This ineffective strategy of course was wrong, as it led to drain and defeat, and it was France that paid the price with their own dead. In the end France suffered dearly because of Napoleon, and it is a shame that French and British historians have lied about the greatness of Napoleon in order to glorify their own history. A French historian wants you to think that Napoleon was a triumph for their own morale, but Napoleon is a story of tragedy that left France humiliated and cost the lives of millions. A British historian wants you to believe that Napoleon was a genius instead of a madman. Wouldn't you rather defeat a genius than a delusional madman. These are the lies that these historians want you to believe. But the facts are out there. Read about Napoleon's disasters of Egypt, Spain and Russia. Read about how Napoleon got swindled by the fledgling United States in the Louisiana Purchase, as Napoleon foolishly sells Louisiana territory 1,000 % under its value (The US should still be paying France yearly payments for the Louisiana Purchase). Read about how Paris was occupied in 1814, and how France was tired of Napoleon, including Napoleon's own army. Don't let these biased historians who spin the facts make up your mind for you.
Great video, thank you very much , note to self(nts) watched all of it 15:32
He also invented Neapolitan icecream
John, I love that you can do this having just woken from a nap.
While this video is fantastic, you guys missed some of the most important things that happened in Napoleon's life, like the awkward but funny dance he did in front of everybody, or when he voiced support for a candidate in an election and told everyone to Vote for Pedro. I'm assuming those are big things, or else they wouldn't have included them in that movie about his life that came out in 2004.
The metric system is something the rest of the world uses to measure, it'd be nice if Americans stopped using the Imperial system, it's very confusing. Nationalised health care is great too! :D
The US doesn't use Imperial and never has, it's 'US customary units' (official name) or SAE (common name). Imperial was a standardization done in Britain in the early 19th century, 50 years after the American revolution, which took English units (which is basically what the US was using at the time) and redefined them. That's why Imperial gallons are different from US gallons and Imperial pints are 20 ounces while US are 16 along with several other differences.
US units are also all defined using metric units (and have been since 1959, and several decades earlier for length and weight) so conversions aren't hard or confusing for anyone familiar with them or with access to google and a spare 5 seconds. For most people who grew up using SAE metric is the unfamiliar and odd one that's hard to learn with all those prefixes to memorize and the potential for ambiguity and mistakes you get with deci and Deca or milli and Mega.
You're completely right about single payer healthcare.
@@bottypaige8165 I didn't realise that US vs UK measurements are actually different even with the same names. Though in truth we've been using the metric system in the UK more and more over the years anyway. Imperial makes no sense to me whatsoever. Question: why do I still hear Americans refer to their measurement system as "Imperial" if it's not the same as the old British system?
@@xJavelin1 tl;dr It's a simple name that's popular, just like with people calling SI 'metric' instead of its official name. It just sounds better and gets used more often.
I don't think the official name is really something a lot of people learn in school. I certainly can't remember hearing the term 'US customary units' when I was kid. I heard a bunch of other ones though, common, regular, normal, American, SAE and yes Imperial but all of those labels only ever get used in the context of differentiating from metric. SAE is the only one most people are likely to see written down on something, if they go to buy a packaged set of wrenches (spanners) or sockets the options are metric or SAE. And since metric is labelled in whole millimeters and SAE are in fractions of an inch you don't even need the names you just call them a 3/8ths end wrench or a 9 mil socket.
A collective term is rarely used in normal conversation. A common thing to hear might be, '100 Kilometres? How far is that in miles?' or '168 cm? How tall is that in feet?' Not a lot of people go around calling it Imperial unless they are debating Imperial vs metric online.
@@bottypaige8165 That makes sense. Since Imperial measurements have slowly fallen out of favour in the UK there are only certain times they are commonly used: miles and sometimes yards (for distance); pints (for beer or blood); and stones & pounds for weights (usually human weights). Though strangely in that case we'd always say eg 10 stone, six lbs instead of (don't know the conversion) 112 lbs the way Americans do.
Americans use metric a lot.
fun video hack : change video speed to 1.25x and you'll summon the voice of 2013 Crash Course John Green. (( love u john ))
“We still have Napoleon in our guts” 😂😂
Can you please talk about Ireland during your series it’s hugely interesting
Use your channel for learning english and history both. Thank you ❤
Mr. Green, we love you ❤️
bros a bestselling author and is doing crash courses for high school students shoutout to john green #sideguests
The first time i watched these crash course histories i thought they were very good, more and more now i see the angles they take, they're fine but man, take it with a few grains of salt. Listen to the audiobooks of Will Durant if you want proper history
What names Will Durant less biased in his presentation?
Waterloo! Couldn’t escape if I wanted to!
Hello, could you please tell me how's the painting from 1:24 called? I'm struggling to find it. Thanks in advance!
Kaiser also comes from Caesar because in Latin C always sounds like a K.
I was always puzzled how people procreated in the past. But during your courses I found out that in history there were women too. Never learned that at school.
very solid! thank you!
John Greene is actually the reason I am a history major.
To say Napoleon "wanted" to conquer Europe is a bit much. Other countries declared war on HIM. Then he beat them. Over and over. Vienna was captured TWICE, sometimes less than a year after it declared war on the French Empire.
That said, it wouldn't exactly be accurate to describe Napoleon as someone who solely defended his country. The terms he imposed on the nations that he defeated weren't exactly something that helped usher peace.
@@putbye1 true. One of his flaws for sure. But still. After trouncing his opponents so well and so decisively, it's not surprising his terms were harsh. Austra, Prussia, Russia (first time) were in no position to say no.
My grand-parents used to have a small statue of NAPOLEON BONAPARTE on the buffet in their livingroom. My grand grand father was a CORSICAN like Napoleon. So, yes, NAPOLEON was an important figure for my family and most of the poor people of France. Now some remarks about this documentary: the author completely ignored the role of FREE-MACONERY in Napoleon's destiny, despite the facts that (even if there is no proof that he was a freemacon) he was surrounded by known freemacons : his father was one, his brother also, his wife JOSEFINE was part of free-maconery like most of his close collaborators. Behind the grandiose public shows, NAPOLEON was serving the free-maconery core values ( liberty, equality, fraternity) against the 2 arms of SATAN: the monarchy & the catholic roman church. But the ideology of free-maconery had to accomodate with the contingencies of the world. Even rational humanist ideas can remain misunderstood & rejected by the people ( uneducated members of the popular classes). Such as the METRIC SYSTEM, which is not a tyrany forced on Anglosaxon culture, but a smart way of measurement using a objective unit called the METER = (length of Earth's meridian) / 40 000 000 ! ( which METRE ETALON deposited in Sevres France, is a modele ) introducing the planet Earth's size into our daily life, instead of an archaic system based on the size of the king's THUMB. Hope the author will reply to my comments ( that i would be please to discuss)