Napoleon is the only man to have a continent declare war upon him. Not the country he led, he himself.
Has there ever been a more influential general?
Napoleon is the only man to have a continent declare war upon him. Not the country he led, he himself.
>Has there ever been a more influential general?
alexander
not guns
/k/ told me Napoleon wasn’t real
He was real, he was actually a black man. ~~*They*~~ dont want you to know this.
I hope to live long enough to see Monke in a history textbook.
Did he enjoy the dedovshchina?
If we're talking since the 1700s I would say so, maybe rivaled by Frederick the Great and Patton, but in terms of shaking up every foundation of European society, I say Napoleon is the top of that list.
Hitler had the continent of Australia declare war on him
Arguably the US declared war on Saddam when they said he had 48 to gtfo of Iraq or it’d be bombs away
>*48 hours*
>gtfo of Iraq
>what does “get the frick out of Iraq” mean?
>He didn't get it
Iraq had to leave Iraq or they'd be bombed? Is that what you mean?
Or are you implying Kuwait is part of Iraq?
Read the post again esl moron
You're the ESL moron.
>”Arguably the US declared war on Saddam when they said he had 48 hours to gtfo of Iraq or it’d be bombs away”
What part of that implies that Iraq had to leave Iraq? Is Saddam Iraq?
Fricking dumb c**t
Leaders usually represent their entire nations, yes, that's why people tend to say "Putin has to leave Ukraine" for instance.
Ok third world esl Black person
You're both dumb, but only one of you is functionally illiterate.
Yes, him.
what the frick is this lack of reading comprehension
>Arguably the US declared war on Saddam when they said he had 48 to gtfo of Iraq or it’d be bombs away
so, Saddam is an influencial general because he triggered the US so hard they declared all out war against him and his country
if you agree or not is one thing, not being able to comprehend the fricking sentance is another you idiots
Influencial is defined by pissing people off now?
if getting the US to declare war isn't influencial then what is?
Noriega was influencial too?
he really influenced the entirety of panama
Who gives a single flying frick about Panama other than for the canal?
if you want to argue he wasn't that influencial in world politics
ok
che or castro would be much higher on the list
>Napoleon is the only man to have a continent declare war upon him.
According to OP, yes.
According to hitler yes
>completely fricked his country
His accomplishments are of negative value.
A random peacetime general who collected a paycheck and died of old age accomplished more than Napoleon.
Meh. Bongs are still paying for all the debts from the Napoleonic wars, the impact on France was almost solely demographic.
>negative value
"The ideas that underpin our modern world—meritocracy, equality before the law, property rights, religious toleration, modern secular education, sound finances, and so on—were championed, consolidated, codified and geographically extended by Napoleon. To them he added a rational and efficient local administration, an end to rural banditry, the encouragement of science and the arts, the abolition of feudalism and the greatest codification of laws since the fall of the Roman Empire."
Yeah, nah.
While I don’t agree with the other guy, all of those ideas were already spreading like wildfire and would have almost certainly taken root with or without Napoleon. The US already had virtually all of that. Also, Roman law wasn’t codified until the reign of Justinian, after the Western (real) half of the empire fell.
Yet these were the main reasons bongs were so adamant on getting rid of him by all means, not military conquests, but his influence over political, civil and social matters within Europe.
And they were right. The continuation of his enlightenment and nationalist ideals ultimately destroyed Europe In the 20th century.
>ultimately destroyed Europe In the 20th century.
Good riddance
Ulysses S. Grant is the only man to conquer a nation bigger than continental Europe in the span of 2 years and have the nation he won/led last more than 10 with his military tactics.
Has there ever been a more influential general?
>Grant and Julia embarked for Paris on October 24 and checked in at the famous Hotel Bristol for five weeks. Grant for several reasons intended to make his visit to France an unofficial one.
>Grant's less than favorable feelings toward Napoleon were largely known among French statesmen and military upon his arrival. Though Grant recognized Napoleon's acclaimed military genius, that he was a French Revolution war hero, he did not like the man himself, or the Bonaparte family. Grant once stated,
"The third Napoleon was worse than the first, the especial enemy to America and liberty. Think of the misery he brought upon France by a war which only a madman would have declared."
>While in Paris, Grant thought the various paintings portraying Napoleon's battles were distasteful.
>Relations were further strained because U.S. Minister to France Elihu Washburne during the recent Franco-Prussian War once used his diplomatic immunity to protect German diplomats wanted by the French government – a position that was supported by Grant while president.
> Young suggested that as an act of good faith they (Grant and Family) visit Napoleon's tomb, but upon coming to the scene Grant turned away.
Holy based.
>Shits on Napoleon and France in real time in their own nation.
>Gets away with it.
How?
He didnt even know what kind of person napoleon was (napoleon treated his soldier better and was closer from them than Grant ever would)
ODA was more important, and no one was wa bigger KEK than the drunkard Grant. he was involved with a massive gold scandal in the 1870s that almost took down the entire govt.
1. Grant was never a drunkard. This has been attested multiple times by several Generals and people that were there during and after the Civil War.
2. The Gold Scandal was not personally Grant's fault, but a conspiracy that he actively put a stop to save the economy from being monopolized, but at the cost of a crash.
3. Everything you posted has nothing to do with him being a better general.
To add-on to point one, General Lee, General Sherman, and Abraham Lincoln all defend the character of General Grant as one of the best Generals they ever seen and his character of not being a drunk. He was also one of the most legendary horse riders in his day.
Lee was a saint and he never badmouthed anyone, the other two were frickhead 19th century bidens.
>Lee was a saint.
Saint at losing a war and men for nothing.
he was a soused sack of shit. he was in on the gold scandal just like our politicians have kids who are mentally moronic crackheads with $50K a week board seats for oil companies and african mining corps.
cope, seethe and dilate discord troony. go jerk off to your lanky railroad lawyer.
homie had a whole ass army and 3 fricking ships dedicated to making sure he didn't escape from the little of fricking nowhere island the brits put him on
Gotta respect how much they feared him