| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Napoleon, dictator or hero?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Napoleon, dictator or hero?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Poll Question: Is Napoleon a dictator or a hero?
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
4 [21.05%]
4 [21.05%]
10 [52.63%]
1 [5.26%]
0 [0.00%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
franciscosan View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 09 Feb 2015
Location: Littleton CO
Status: Offline
Points: 3510
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote franciscosan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Napoleon, dictator or hero?
    Posted: 24 Apr 2019 at 13:04
I think that dictator refers to how one rules, through dicta or declaration.  In some ways, it is "polite, politically correct," morally neutral term for tyrant.

Hero is in Greek someone between mortal and demigod (or also and daimon (spirit), a hero tends to be larger than life, but they are not necessarily a highly moral individual.  Part of it is the people's perception (or the instruction of oracles), again someone bigger than life, to whom a heroes shrine gets raised.

dictator and hero are not antithetical to each other.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
doskinas View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 05 Mar 2019
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote doskinas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Apr 2019 at 00:50
It really depends on whose perspective you look at it. Even the French are still confused. For example to the people of Lithuania Napoleon was a hero a liberator from the Russian empire. Even tho it was for a short while. 
If we look at how he is perceived today around the world. For the military enthusiast, he can be viewed as a hero since he is considered one of the greatest commanders in history—his campaigns are studied at military schools worldwide. Hundreds of groups study, discuss and venerate him. 

So it will depend on which perspective will you look at. There are always to sides to the coin and it is no different here. The only difference is that it is usually not so easy to compare both sides. As the story, most of the time is written by the winners and the losers being suppressed. And most of the records are purged. 


Edited by toyomotor - 17 Apr 2019 at 06:35
Historia - worlds 1st consensus-based historical record storage blockchain. Historia Website
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2014 at 06:09
Chandler and a number of other noted and well qualified scholars would agree..my friend.

Tis only the lesser ie. those who obfuscate and attempt revision out of historical context who would do other.

He was a fine tactician and better than average strategist and as a ruler far better than most who the aforementioned have attempted to broad brush him with. A Solon? No.

an Alexander? perhaps. A Ceaser? Possibly. But when I cite them in context they as he did all have their failings. Such is the game.
Back to Top
toyomotor View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Location: Tasmania, AUST.
Status: Offline
Points: 5178
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote toyomotor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2014 at 14:18
There have been periods in times past when, to have been under the control of a Dictator, was to have stable government, overall better conditions, and less corruption.
 
I can't say whether or not this was the case with Napoleon.
 
He was a renowned general and military leader-no argument there.
 
But to the OP, I suggest that he was definately a Dictator and a hero to the French people.
It's not that I was born in Ireland,
It's the Ireland that was born in me.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 May 2014 at 02:51
As to the original op?

Both. And better than most.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 May 2014 at 23:07
Quote Winston Churchill was very active in the strengthening of ties between France and Germany after WWII, conscious that without peace between these two countries, there would be no European Union.

Britain was only interested in the Common Market concept, which assisted peaceful interaction and economic growth in the post-WW2 period. The initiative toward European Union was largely France and Germany. Now that Germany has been re-united in the wake of the Cold War, Germany has begun to dominate financially, leaving France in a clear second place (please note I watched a report that showed the difference in how french and german peoples see this issue - the Germans are happy and all in favour, the French increasingly frustrated with rising prices. Right now the British are still arguing about referendums and right wing isolationism)
http://www.unrv.com/forum/blog/31-caldrails-blog/
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 May 2014 at 03:17
In honour of the 193rd anniversary of Napoleon's death, here's a brief article I wrote on his life:

Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 23:46
Intelligent analysis caldrail. 

I am pro-Europe but, at the same time, pro-national identity. More than that, I am pro-regional pride. I encourage my friends in different regions not to let their local dialects disappear. We can live in a Europe made up of different countries with their own frontiers and languages and, within those frontiers, countries made up of different regions, again with their own history, dialect, food, etc. The thing is that someone in, for example, a remote village in Brittany needs to feel a triple sense of pride - the pride of being a Breton, the pride of being French and the pride of being European. 
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 23:17
I think that you are right in your assessment. For so long as none country in Europe achieve clear dominance of European Union, the Union will survive.
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 22:25
Quote In same works, the name “hereditary enemies” are used to describe German and French past enmity. At present, the relations between those two country are good. It helps stabilise European Union.

Both countries have a vested interest in stabilising Europe. However, bear in mind that politics encourages ambition, and there will always be a risk of nationalistic dominance or an attempt toward it which would not maintain the status quo at all. Worlkd War One began because a delicate balance had been tipped over by a new united Germany wishing to join the big league. As long as moderation remains control then the Union will continue without any undue harm. Bear in mind that politicians within the Union have bigger ideas - there are already plans for european integration that dismiss former national boundaries (Britain for instance falls within the Atlantic Provincce) and such empire building is prone to harnessing by dominant politicians as history has shown many examples of.

As a union of nations it can work sensibly. As a federated Europe or European Empire, it will eventually bring about strife, because internal divisions will not disappear - regional identities are very powerful social forces - they survived communist attempts to eradicate them after all. Indeed, the attempt to subjugate social identities or recreate them can lead almost inevitably to war.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 10:10
Originally posted by Laurentius Laurentius wrote:

Sorry for not replying to your recent post, Goral; I didn't receive the notification and only just noticed it now.

Winston Churchill was very active in the strengthening of ties between France and Germany after WWII, conscious that without peace between these two countries, there would be no European Union.

No problem L.
The old WC was right, as usual (mostly)
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 06:19
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Pardon, no offense, but a Franco-German animosity is nonsense.

Not entirely. Both nations have competed for influence within the European Union and have been at loggerheads since ancient times. Some historians point to the Varian Disaster of ad9 as the moment at which France and Germany became two seperate cultural influences, in that Gaulm was under Roman patronage and control (the Romans refer to Gaul as the provinces that most closely emulated them) whereas Germania was never conquered and retained its celtic identity. The integration of german countries helped spark off two world wars after all.



In same works, the name “hereditary enemies” are used to describe German and French past enmity. At present, the relations between those two country are good. It helps stabilise European Union.
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jan 2014 at 00:55
As civil wars have shown, plus the wars and rivalry between Prussia and Austria in the 19th century, a common language doesn't necessarily help to strengthen ties. Under the Franks, lands were conquered and borders widened only to have it all fall apart each generation as territories were carved up between the sons of a deceased king. Charlemagne managed to unite roughly what is France, Germany and Italy, only to have it divided between his grandsons. To what extent the people were happy under the Emperor Charlemagne I don't know but I imagine that, at the time, they assumed that it was permanent. I hope that the friendship between France and Germany today is permanent. The press always try to find hints of a rift, for example a photo taken of the two leaders sitting side by side but looking in opposite directions will make headlines as a problem in the Franco-German relationship. I guess at least Charlemagne didn't have to contend with the paparazzi.

Do any of you ever feel like giving a history lesson to politicians of today when they make stupid decisions that could easily have been avoided if they just concentrated a bit more in 1st Grade History at school, or am I the only one?
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 22:48
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

Quote Pardon, no offense, but a Franco-German animosity is nonsense.

Not entirely. Both nations have competed for influence within the European Union and have been at loggerheads since ancient times. Some historians point to the Varian Disaster of ad9 as the moment at which France and Germany became two seperate cultural influences, in that Gaulm was under Roman patronage and control (the Romans refer to Gaul as the provinces that most closely emulated them) whereas Germania was never conquered and retained its celtic identity. The integration of german countries helped spark off two world wars after all.

All nations in europe competed for infcluence and do it today. But an enmity is something different.
And the varian defeat in AD 9 was not that decisive as we know today, cos even in the afterhood Romans controlled more or less these area. Correct is, that the Germania on the right bank of the Rhine remained widely germanic. But there were as well Roman territories in the Wetterau along the main river and the agri decumati and as well the Roman area south of the Danube.

And there was as well the Frankish empire, which included gaul and germany, even Italy. latin was the language of the elite and as well in the later east frankonian empire and HRE. that this Frankish empire broke had dynastical reasons, not linguistic or cultural one. And e.g. the eastern part still included greater areas of romanic language.

So there is no need to draw a red line from the Varian defeat to the world wars. If germany would have been Romanic speaking, who knows if there wouldn't have been two romanic speaking powers, France and Allemagne, who had competed or in the contrary scenario a Frankland and Deutschland or a Romanic empire against a Slavic?
Back to Top
caldrail View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Rushey Platt
Status: Offline
Points: 1142
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote caldrail Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 20:59
Quote Pardon, no offense, but a Franco-German animosity is nonsense.

Not entirely. Both nations have competed for influence within the European Union and have been at loggerheads since ancient times. Some historians point to the Varian Disaster of ad9 as the moment at which France and Germany became two seperate cultural influences, in that Gaulm was under Roman patronage and control (the Romans refer to Gaul as the provinces that most closely emulated them) whereas Germania was never conquered and retained its celtic identity. The integration of german countries helped spark off two world wars after all.
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 20:11
Sorry for not replying to your recent post, Goral; I didn't receive the notification and only just noticed it now.

Winston Churchill was very active in the strengthening of ties between France and Germany after WWII, conscious that without peace between these two countries, there would be no European Union.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 19:08
Originally posted by Laurentius Laurentius wrote:

I just found an interesting quote in "Napoléon ou la destinée" by Jean-Marie Rouart (Gallimard 2012):

Visiting the burial site of the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in 1801, he said, "Perhaps many people would be better off if he and I never existed." 

This is a rough translation of the phrase but it was a display of Napoleon's recognition of the impact his actions had on the people of Europe. Rousseau was one of the philosophers of the Century of Enlightenment whose ideas convinced many people in France that change was possible, although he died eleven years before the outbreak of the Revolution.

He was a great man with a lot of failings. He certainly had same doubt about his actions.
Back to Top
beorna View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Location: Lower Saxony
Status: Offline
Points: 799
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote beorna Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 04:55
Originally posted by Goral Goral wrote:


Well... I agree to disagree...
The Franco-German animosity is well entrenched in history of both countries.
There ware numerous wars from the very beginning of existence of these two states.
This will be no general change in attitude towards each others regardless if Napoleon exist or not, however I must say that his existence (and achievements as well as failures) did galvanise some historical processes.
Just look at the number of wars between those two countries...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France

Only recently, thanks to Franco German reconciliation we can have Europe as it is today.


Pardon, no offense, but a Franco-German animosity is nonsense. These French-German enmity was invented by the nationalist Ernst Moritz Arndt in the early 19th century after the Liberation Wars. And nationalists used it in the following decadesIn all those wars Germans fought on the French side, too and not only against France. Even during the napoleonic wars germans in several regions welcomed the French and their revolutionary ideas.
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 01:26
I just found an interesting quote in "Napoléon ou la destinée" by Jean-Marie Rouart (Gallimard 2012):

Visiting the burial site of the philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in 1801, he said, "Perhaps many people would be better off if he and I never existed." 

This is a rough translation of the phrase but it was a display of Napoleon's recognition of the impact his actions had on the people of Europe. Rousseau was one of the philosophers of the Century of Enlightenment whose ideas convinced many people in France that change was possible, although he died eleven years before the outbreak of the Revolution.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2014 at 15:32
Quality posts Laurentius & Goral. Thumbs Up
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2014 at 14:34
Originally posted by Laurentius Laurentius wrote:

I'm not sure I agree. Louis XVIII wanted his throne and was happy to behave and not make any trouble with the rest of Europe. Napoleon was instrumental in many victories for the revolutionary army and without him France would most likely have been defeated and handed back to the Bourbons. He certainly did speed up the process towards change across Europe. It would have happened eventually but when? As for the Crimean War, France's involvement was part of Napoleon III's plan to give back to France its status as a major player on the European scene and to overturn 1815's Treaty of Vienna. 


Well... I agree to disagree...
The Franco-German animosity is well entrenched in history of both countries.
There ware numerous wars from the very beginning of existence of these two states.
This will be no general change in attitude towards each others regardless if Napoleon exist or not, however I must say that his existence (and achievements as well as failures) did galvanise some historical processes.
Just look at the number of wars between those two countries...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_France

Only recently, thanks to Franco German reconciliation we can have Europe as it is today.

Edited by Goral - 09 Jan 2014 at 14:36
Back to Top
Penderyn View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 16 Dec 2013
Location: Cymru
Status: Offline
Points: 37
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Penderyn Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Jan 2014 at 03:11
A hopeless vulgarian on the lines of Hitler but worse, who had huge political and military gifts.   Unqualified disaster!
Mochyn i bob un
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 19:41
I'm not sure I agree. Louis XVIII wanted his throne and was happy to behave and not make any trouble with the rest of Europe. Napoleon was instrumental in many victories for the revolutionary army and without him France would most likely have been defeated and handed back to the Bourbons. He certainly did speed up the process towards change across Europe. It would have happened eventually but when? As for the Crimean War, France's involvement was part of Napoleon III's plan to give back to France its status as a major player on the European scene and to overturn 1815's Treaty of Vienna. 
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 15:34
The fight for hegemony in Europe will continue even if Napoleon will not come to existence at all. This is a nature of human beings. There was a hard fighting between France and Holly Roman Empire (not Holly and not Roman- as somebody said I think it was Voltaire)before Napoleon and it will continue anyway as those two big nations were on collision course in their image of Europe.
Defeat of Napoleon cemented status quo in Europe creating stagnation in social development.
This stagnation was only shattered by Crimean War and rapid industrialisation of continental Europe which created another tension between the great player.
So, in my opinion, Napoleon or not, wars between France and Germany (or Prussia alone) were inevitable.

Edited by Goral - 08 Jan 2014 at 15:35
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 09:04
I don't disagree with you but I have to admit that I am of two minds. He did great things for France but it's true that a lot of people died at his hands outside of France (captured Turkish soldiers in Egypt being executed rather than held in custody, for example). Napoleon knew that he would win the (French) people over through his military victories. Prussia's defeat at Jena was the start of that state's determination to become a major power, so one can say that Napoleon III's defeat at the hands of the Prussians in 1870 was a result of his uncle's victory in 1806. France's crushing of Germany in 1919 was revenge for 1870 and Hitler's humiliation of France during the occupation was payback for the Treaty of Versailles, but a military commander can't ever imagine just how much one victory can create enough hatred to cause 150 years' worth of hostility.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 07:43
Originally posted by Laurentius Laurentius wrote:

At the end of the 18th century, very few countries had ever tasted true democracy. A lot of blood had been shed in France over a decade and Napoleon offered the stability that the Directoire couldn't provide. The transition from absolute monarchy to democracy was a long one and the Empire (and thus Napoleon I's dictatorship) was perhaps a necessary step. It certainly restored the nation's pride in itself. 

At the same time, Europe needed shaking up. Life was good for the social elite but not so good for the masses. After Napoleon's final fall in 1815, the Bourbons hoped to return to a pre-1789 France but there could never be any turning back, not for France nor for the rest of Europe. One thing for sure is that he was a better military commander than all of the French kings put together. 


With fall of Napoleon and Congress of Vienna, the absolutism of Russia, Austro-Hungary and Prussia was cemented for decades.
Back to Top
Goral View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 22 Jun 2013
Location: Poland
Status: Offline
Points: 256
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Goral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Jan 2014 at 07:40
Napoleon gave the base for civil low in many European countries. As a lawmaking, he was certainly a Hero
But his untamed ambitions lead to unparallel bloodshed all over Europe.
Back to Top
Laurentius View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl
Avatar

Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Location: Paris, France
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurentius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Jan 2014 at 23:46
At the end of the 18th century, very few countries had ever tasted true democracy. A lot of blood had been shed in France over a decade and Napoleon offered the stability that the Directoire couldn't provide. The transition from absolute monarchy to democracy was a long one and the Empire (and thus Napoleon I's dictatorship) was perhaps a necessary step. It certainly restored the nation's pride in itself. 

At the same time, Europe needed shaking up. Life was good for the social elite but not so good for the masses. After Napoleon's final fall in 1815, the Bourbons hoped to return to a pre-1789 France but there could never be any turning back, not for France nor for the rest of Europe. One thing for sure is that he was a better military commander than all of the French kings put together. 
Back to Top
Harburs View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3144
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Harburs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Mar 2013 at 06:19
#3: A dictator and a hero at the same time!
"Turn yourself not away from three best things: Good Thought, Good Word, and Good Deed" Zoroaster.
Back to Top
Drakoblare View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 13 Mar 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 17
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Drakoblare Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2013 at 22:37
I really would not call him a dictator. Aint there supposed to be a democracy first? We all know that the picking of rulers during that time was a joke in France.

He was a hero in my book.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.01
Copyright ©2001-2018 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.