Europe would have been better off if Napoleon won.
>"HE CROWNED HIMSELF KING AND THUS BETRAYED THE REVOLUTION!!1"
But yet he made republics of all territories he occupied and conquered. Rule of law, republics, suffrage and the end of kings and despots 100 years earlier than our timeline. What's not to love? Also would have freed Poland from Russia which is based.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
There's no such thing as a good monarch.
Wrong.
There is such a thing as a good emperor though. Many such examples.
eternal reminder that monarchies are demonstrably, factually and statistically more democratic than republics
Proof?
The lack of heads coming off of people in France's main British rival between the day the Bastille got broken into and 1815...
you understand that example seen in the british monarhcy is an exemption on the norm right? literally the only courts that did somethign similar where the HRE in ts hay day and the catalanoaragonese till they got krumped in the succession wars
>But yet he made republics of all territories he occupied and conquered.
Funny way of saying he replaced previous monarches with members of his family and then just called them “Republics”. Meanwhile Nappy’s greatest enemy (Britain) actually had a far more democratic society at the time than France or any of its republic LARPing puppets lmao
Britain until the great reform act of 1833 wasn't remotely democratic, it was an oligarchy and not a monarchy but the average person had no more say on politics
True
he won a cultural victory
napoopan was no gloriovs imperator, his career began blowing apart parisians, he betrayed every ally and put his relatives on their thrones, lied out the ass constantly and broke promises to civilians and minor principalities as he barreled through europe, africa and asia, the ottomans, spain, russia, poland, the list goes on and on
if anything, someone more like sidney smith should have taken that spot, but there is an unfortunate contradiction in this world, those who are best suited to power rarely seek it and those that do are usually the least suited to it
Americans and Angloids have such a weird complex about Napoleon. Look at how ass-blasted Americans were over Napoleon, the 1809 first book of Napoleon is a seething, impotent account of Napoleon, re-tooled into biblical KJV language since that's all Americans can understand.
>1 And behold it came to pass, in these latter days, that an evil spirit arose on the face of the earth, and greatly troubled the sons of men,
>2 And this spirit seized upon, and spread amongst the people who dwell in the land of Gaul. [...]
>4 And the evil spirit went abroad amongst the people, and they raged like unto the heathen, and they rose up against their lawful king, and slew him, and his queen also, and the prince their son 5 yea, verily, with a cruel and bloody death. 5 And they moreover smote, with mighty wrath, the king's guards, and banished the priests, and nobles of the land
Napoleon brought law, order, and liberty literally everywhere he conquered. Despite being an extreme narcissist i think he deserved all of his glory and fame.
>Also would have freed Poland from Russia which is based.
His only path to victory is not invading Russia. It didn't matter that he won battles, his army starved and shat itself to death on the journey, the entire invasion could have very well ended with the entire force wiped out to a man.
So basically, frickem.
What would have happened if he didn't invade Russia?
‘So he is no more than a common mortal! Now he, too, will tread underfoot all the rights of man [and] indulge only his ambition; now he will think himself superior to all men [and] become a tyrant!’
Anyways if he didn't crown himself Emperor and lose he couldve been a legend greater than Alexander
>revolution winning
No way that's better for anybody. One Robespierre was quite enough