Where did napoleon go wrong and was the french empire a justified entity for the time ?

where did napoleon go wrong and was the french empire a justified entity for the time ?

Attached: french empire.png (1024x682, 211.12K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enlightened_despots
twitter.com/AnonBabble

France was an experiment in republicanism and achieved some great success in its classical liberal goals. Yet its government was unstable and weak and the only reason Napoleon became dictator was too save it. Although he didn't try to reestablish anything resembling the republic and became an absolute monarch, no different from France's previous kings.

Idk but I think he did what was necessary. Robespierre is way more based though

Imo? Yeah, they helped massively in ending feudalism and the absolutist monarchies of the time (by becoming an absolutist monarchy itself, but again the overall outcome justifies it). Sometimes, we must unfortunately retain or bring back some reactionary/primitive methods (not permanently ofc) to achieve progress.

He didn't recall Grouchy before the opening of Waterloo and the Prussians got to him

june 24 1812

...

...

Napoleon was 1800s' Stalin. He just wasn't as talented and disciplined. (Lost the war, proclaimed monarchy)

Napoleon's Russian campaign wasn't at all ridiculous or irrational. It had a cause (violation of continental blockade), and chances of victory: if he'd be able to catch up to Russian armies and decisively beat them piecemeal, he could wrap it up.

So you're admitting that Stalin was the product of a soviet thermidor?

Attached: neobol gang.JPG (983x322, 71.45K)

Yes, and October revolution inevitably led to thermdor.

Isn't that just trotskyism?

Attached: stalinjonesey.png (540x350, 199.37K)

Trotskyism implies that if, by Chance, Trotsky would consolidate power, the USSR would be systematically different and fare much greater. I believe it would be functionally similar, and see no indications it would be better or worse. Overall, it was necessary for the USSR to become like that in this period of time.

Basically logistics, he stretched his supply lines too thin in Russia.
Was it the best possible outcome of the French Revolution? We can't know for sure, but it brought stability and prosperity to France, which allowed a country predominantly led by commons to achieve material dominance over other countries led by nobles, and even though they lost, thanks to the Napoleonic Wars eventually the commons succeeded and won the class war.

this isn't true tho
Trotsky was pretty explicit about the inevitability of soviet thermidor in the given material conditions and was very clearly against an great man theory of history bullshit. He even says that if Lenin had not died when he did and lived longer while some things may have taken longer and certain incidents not occurred as they did the situation would have developed in the same way nonetheless.

Attached: che doubt.jpg (300x359, 14.03K)

second french empire was pretty cool


if he hadn't lost to prussia, france would unironically have monarcho-socialism

Attached: napoleon III.jpg (678x800, 188.36K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_enlightened_despots
The most famous enlightened despots in history were:
Catherine the Great of Russia
Carlos III of Spain
Frederick the Great of Prussia
Frederick VI of Denmark
Gustav III of Sweden
Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor of Austria
Joseph I of Portugal (through his minister the Marquis of Pombal)
Maria Theresa of Austria
Leopold I, Grand Duke of Tuscany
Louis XVI of France
Maria Carolina of Austria, Queen of Naples
Christian VII of Denmark (through his minister Johann Friedrich Struensee)
Napoleon Bonaparte
Napoleon III

Attached: napoleon.jpg (1200x565, 143.44K)

Attached: literally my niggas.jpg (600x340, 60.97K)

Didn't Napoleon III slaughter the Parisian Commune in Bloody Week?

The Paris Commune was bound to fail. Even Marx wrote about it.

Napoleon III had already abdicated the throne quite a while before the Commune was declared. France was a republic when the Commune happened.

he was a farce though and gave up the throne from depression after being played by Bismarck and losing at Sedan.

Source? My understanding was that Napoleon sought to destroy the British by appealing to Polish nationalists in an attempt to discourage Russians from trading with the British.

Lassalle go be a Jewish nigger somewhere else

Of all the things that socialism stands against that people try to force upon it to create a turd position, (markets, religion, private property, racism, nationalism, caste) I understand bloodlines the fucking least.

Uhhhh what? Are you comparing Trotsky to Robespierre, because that is the only way the metaphor makes sense, i.e. the Jacobins were ejected from office/killed, H├ębertistes/sans-culottes were suppressed, etc. Napoleon's rule was extremely short-lived and was immediately followed by a Bourbon restoration. For this metaphor to make any sense, we would have needed:
Instead we had:
Face it, you're just mad your guy wasn't the leader

brainlet

Explain to me exactly what actions were the same. All you have is extremely vague "power changed hands" nonsense

Funny how revolutionary France turned into a dictatorship just like Soviet Union.

The Russian Revolution wasn't a Communist Revolution, it was a Jacobin Revolution.