I wrote my eighth grade report on him, so I'm far from a scholar, but the general impression I get is that he had a spirit of greatness about him and didn't tolerate humiliation (defeat at Waterloo, exile to Elba) very well. He was a natural leader who was well aware of his greatness, to the point of arrogance. Also...did you know that he was actually average height (slightly above-average, in fact): 5'8". The English started a rumor that he was what we call in the current parlance a manlet so that they wouldn't be intimidated by him.
And he named his son "Napeoleon III" because he had a child who was stillborn.
Come to think of it...this might be in the film. Question for you: it's gotten lukewarm reception. Is it any good? If so, can you give me some insight into why it hasn't cracked 60% with critics or audiences on Rottentomatoes.com?
This post was edited 53 seconds after it was posted.
It was incredibly inaccurate. There are youtube docs explaining the inaccuracies. Napoleon wanted to turn France into the leading empire in Europe and he was able to revolutionize military tactics as well as gain the love of the French army which led him to do so. However, on the diplomatic front he failed. On the military front he became overconfident after winning several wars which led to the disastrous march into Russia which decimated the French army to the point it could no longer fight a coalition.
I wrote my eighth grade report on him, so I'm far from a scholar, but the general impression I get is that he had a spirit of greatness about him and didn't tolerate humiliation (defeat at Waterloo, exile to Elba) very well. He was a natural leader who was well aware of his greatness, to the point of arrogance. Also...did you know that he was actually average height (slightly above-average, in fact): 5'8". The English started a rumor that he was what we call in the current parlance a manlet so that they wouldn't be intimidated by him.
And he named his son "Napeoleon III" because he had a child who was stillborn.
Come to think of it...this might be in the film. Question for you: it's gotten lukewarm reception. Is it any good? If so, can you give me some insight into why it hasn't cracked 60% with critics or audiences on Rottentomatoes.com?
I had no history knowledge of the man, other than hearing his name. The movie made me want to learn more about him. The movie was well done and very interesting. Thanks for responding.
It was incredibly inaccurate. There are youtube docs explaining the inaccuracies. Napoleon wanted to turn France into the leading empire in Europe and he was able to revolutionize military tactics as well as gain the love of the French army which led him to do so. However, on the diplomatic front he failed. On the military front he became overconfident after winning several wars which led to the disastrous march into Russia which decimated the French army to the point it could no longer fight a coalition.
Interesting. There was no such thing as a "personality disorder," back then...but do you think he might have had one? I remember reading somewhere that Alexander Hamilton was almost certainly bipolar (a mood disorder, not a personality one, but same premise). And a lot of great leaders had very visible flaws. Iran's Mohammed Mossadegh was a noted hypochondriac, for example, but a brilliant negotiator. He was known for going into coughing fits when things were not going well in negotiations. Churchill was an alcoholic, etc...etc.
This post was edited 22 seconds after it was posted.
It was incredibly inaccurate. There are youtube docs explaining the inaccuracies. Napoleon wanted to turn France into the leading empire in Europe and he was able to revolutionize military tactics as well as gain the love of the French army which led him to do so. However, on the diplomatic front he failed. On the military front he became overconfident after winning several wars which led to the disastrous march into Russia which decimated the French army to the point it could no longer fight a coalition.
Interesting. There was no such thing as a "personality disorder," back then...but do you think he might have had one? I remember reading somewhere that Alexander Hamilton was almost certainly bipolar (a mood disorder, not a personality one, but same premise). And a lot of great leaders had very visible flaws. Iran's Mohammed Mossadegh was a noted hypochondriac, for example, but a brilliant negotiator. He was known for going into coughing fits when things were not going well in negotiations. Churchill was an alcoholic, etc...etc.
IDK. There is a case to be made that his head was on the chopping block if he hadn't taken over the government after his desertion in Egypt. There is a case to be made that he was a narcissist. He had years of brilliant victories leading up to his defeat in the war of the Sixth Coalition and it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he'd won some quick victory that forced the European powers to the negotiating table. If he'd had the army that invaded Russia and not an army comprised mostly of green conscripts, he might have. Its hard to look at his stunning success from 1793 to 1812 and not make comparisons to Alexander. I think he stopped viewing his victories as these crazy brilliant one time things and viewing them as a matter of course. Perhaps god punished him for abandoning Josephine.
Ridley Scott has poor movies about history. Another example is the Kingdom of Heaven. It paints the Muslim army as some vengeful victim of the blood thirsty crusaders but fails to take into account the invasion of Jerusalem by the Muslim armies kicking the Byzantines out. It starts off with crusaders bad, crusaders starting the conflict. With Napoleon he makes a movie to desecrate the image of a unique figure in history , Napoleon, by falsifying history.
Interesting. There was no such thing as a "personality disorder," back then...but do you think he might have had one? I remember reading somewhere that Alexander Hamilton was almost certainly bipolar (a mood disorder, not a personality one, but same premise). And a lot of great leaders had very visible flaws. Iran's Mohammed Mossadegh was a noted hypochondriac, for example, but a brilliant negotiator. He was known for going into coughing fits when things were not going well in negotiations. Churchill was an alcoholic, etc...etc.
IDK. There is a case to be made that his head was on the chopping block if he hadn't taken over the government after his desertion in Egypt. There is a case to be made that he was a narcissist. He had years of brilliant victories leading up to his defeat in the war of the Sixth Coalition and it wouldn't have surprised anyone if he'd won some quick victory that forced the European powers to the negotiating table. If he'd had the army that invaded Russia and not an army comprised mostly of green conscripts, he might have. Its hard to look at his stunning success from 1793 to 1812 and not make comparisons to Alexander. I think he stopped viewing his victories as these crazy brilliant one time things and viewing them as a matter of course. Perhaps god punished him for abandoning Josephine.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. Your last comment reminded me of something I read in a collection of famous love letters, this one from Napoleon to Josephine. It started out: "I don't love you, I hate you!" So, he was kinda Al to Peg's Bundy well before the modern era. ;)
Ridley Scott has poor movies about history. Another example is the Kingdom of Heaven. It paints the Muslim army as some vengeful victim of the blood thirsty crusaders but fails to take into account the invasion of Jerusalem by the Muslim armies kicking the Byzantines out. It starts off with crusaders bad, crusaders starting the conflict. With Napoleon he makes a movie to desecrate the image of a unique figure in history , Napoleon, by falsifying history.
That one wasn't historically accurate either, but I enjoyed it, maybe because I watched it for the first time in my teens. I think House of Gucci is probably his only really good film since Gladiator. That's a biopic, but its more grounded and doesn't seem to have an agenda, its a more fair representation.
Ridley doesn't care about historical accuracy so he does best when the history is just setting for his original stories. When he steers too close to actual history, the critics pan him.
I enjoyed it. Watched it with the knowledge it wouldn't be historically correct. There is a 4 and a half hour cut of the movie that will be on Apple later in the year.
I don't know but in France where I live a the majority of those who don't like the movie are those who think Napoleon was the greatest man in the history of the world.
So I would guess Scott didn't paint Napoleon as the "hero" many think he is ?
What I know is true however is that Scott portrayed very well his relationship with his wife Josephine. Napoleon really had a weird obsession with her, and it's factually true she wasn't the most faithful of wives.
And he named his son "Napeoleon III" because he had a child who was stillborn.
Napoleon III was actually his nephew. Napoleon II was the first Napoleon's son and was nominally the emperor of France for a few weeks after his father abdicated.
I enjoyed it. Watched it with the knowledge it wouldn't be historically correct. There is a 4 and a half hour cut of the movie that will be on Apple later in the year.
Spielberg is working on a 7 part miniseries on Napoleon's life for HBO. Hopefully the director's cut of Scott's film is better, but I imagine this will be the definitive modern Napoleon.
And he named his son "Napeoleon III" because he had a child who was stillborn.
Napoleon III was actually his nephew. Napoleon II was the first Napoleon's son and was nominally the emperor of France for a few weeks after his father abdicated.
Napoleon III, as well as being the first French president, was emperor for longer than Napoleon I.
Napoleon was beloved by the French for restoring a semblance of sanity after the Robespierrean reign of terror.
He was beloved by the Catholics for making them the official church of France.
He was beloved by scientists and track athletes for standardizing the metric system across continental Europe. Thanks to him, the standard distance is 1000 paces of a tall man, such as him.
However this movie made him look, be assured that if Hollywood has gone Napoleon, there will be a real-life Napoleon taking over the US within a few years.