I’ve always thought that the idea of Napoleon as a 19th century Hitler was just the legacy of british propaganda. But I’m starting to see it even in more authoritative sources, which brings me to beg the question, was he seriously that bad? I was always under the impression that he was just a warmongering dictator, more similar to an Alexander the Great (who with all his faults, is never compared to Hitler) than to the fuhrer. In northern Italy, where I live, he is still remembered more as a liberator than a conqueror, and in France he is still a hero. From what I’ve gathered he was the arguably greatest general of all time, who just so happened to seize power in a time of crisis and then, subdued by his ego, went on a conquering spree all over europe. France loved him before and after his fall, he didn’t bring misery to the country nor turned it into rubble, and it looks like he left it a lot better than we received it. But most importantly, even though he was certainly a dictator, he looked pretty “enlightened” to me, spreading the revolution’s ideals all over Europe and arguably setting the path for the german and italian unifications.

He certainly wasn’t good, but he just looks to me like the same warmongering king that Europe has had every 20 years. He just happened to be a lot better at it than everyone else.