Essay on Napelon as Portrayed by Pushkin and Lermontov

What is impressive about Sunderland’s writing is the fact that this book is essentially showing us a broad view of the Russian Empire and only using one man to do this. I also noticed that if you were a noble at the time, there really wasn’t much of a limit.

These historians have done a phenomenal job of keeping the topics portrayed in their theses as well as about a comparatively unbiased view on Napoleon and bring about a deeper and hidden meaning behind why Napoleon is considered a hero or a villain. Paul Stock brings about the idea that there was a “romantic appropriation” of Napoleon, especially by the British in the early nineteenth century.

     After battling with Britain, Spain, and Germany, Napoleon invaded Russia. The purpose of this invasion was to enforce the Continental System. In 1812, a Russian winter and the Russian strategy of Scorched Earth defeated Napoleon and his army of 500,000 men. This was Napoleon’s worst defeat. It

While expanding his empire, Napoleon promoted certain enlightened ideologies; however, Napoleon’s self glorification corrupted his enlightened principles. Napoleon’s military and political success undoubtedly established him as the ultimate despot, but the prominence of Napoleon's self exaltation hindered his progress as an enlightened figure. Napoleon’s actions politically and militarily were all fueled by his insatiable desire to self exalt. Napoleon was assuredly the greatest ruler of his time, but his need to self glorify undermined his enlightened policies.

Napoleon Bonaparte, an influential leader of France, was a man of many facets. On one the one hand, Napoleon was a strong leader who created durable institutions and strengthened France, but on the other, there is a more pitiful view of Napoleon. The view of Napoleon was initially very positive: he viewed himself as a protector of the people, and the people saw this too; however, over time, this image was greatly worsened, due to military hardship.

This essay will examine each of these actions, the decisions behind them, and their resultant effects. By providing evidence the actions were ultimately “self-defeating” it will prove that it was the Emperor himself and the choices that he made, rather than British strategic performance, that ultimately proved Napoleon’s undoing. Paul Kennedy states, “Why Napoleon failed was due to a combination of external and internal causes, of British pressure from without and rebellion from within” (British, p146). The intent of this essay, therefore, is to show how the actions listed above facilitated

Napoleon Bonaparte is seen by historians in a variety of lights. Some judge him for his lack of mercy for those in his warpath along with his unmatched air of confidence. Others choose to see him for the leadership abilities and keen mind that fueled his remarkable triumphs as a general, commander, First Consul of France, and even emperor. Owen Connelly uses his work, The Epoch of Napoleon, to bridge the gap that other historians and authors have skimmed over, giving the reader an inside look at not only Napoleon’s military life, but also his political and personal life. Furthermore, Connelly achieves this by showing both the ruthless and heroic sides of Napoleon, including non-military details from the life of Napoleon, and lastly, including quotes from Napoleon and those that interacted with him.

When Napoleon was young, he had a dream of becoming a general, and with the help of his father, he was able to get into a prestigious military school. However, Napoleon did not do well in the school in his first year. Noticing that he needed to improve, Napoleon studied hard by himself and with some help from the professors. The following school year, Napoleon’s performance dramatically improved. Because of this, Napoleon got more attention from the professors. Soon, his talent, which was unnoticed before, was acknowledged by the professors, and Napoleon was given a chance to lead an army in a battle in Egypt. He was largely successful in the battle and as a result was given more opportunities. These opportunities eventually lead Napoleon to become the most well-known general in the history. Napoleon’s failure had fueled him with the urge to become better. Therefore, obstacles can motivate one to try harder which can help one

“I pity the Tsar. I pity Russia. He is a poor and unhappy sovereign…He is obviously a good and quite intelligent man, but he lacks will power, and it is from that character that his state defects developed, that is, his

Napoleons’ rise to emperor in France was indisputable mostly because of his overthrow of the Directory. His success’s as commander of the French army in Italy, only led to his aspiring status change to “Emperor” of France after overthrowing the Directory in November of 1799. His undying ambition for expansion of the empire he was creating however would be his undoing. Napoleons rule as emperor of France was quit spectacular actually and many admired and adored him as ruler. His ways were very appealing, and as a speaker he was very persuasive and admired by most of his people until his later years in his fall and demise. However, Napoleon did not seriously adhere to the ideals of the French Revolution, he did that of the Enlightenment but his undying ambition and character as “Emperor” undermined the true need of the French Revolution.

Napoleon has been recognised as a military genius. His various military exploits have been widely regarded as great feats and his military prowess was definitely an important factor is his ascension to power. Napoleon has been said to be a great tactician and strategist in war which was essentially why he was able to progress through the ranks of military also while becoming a national hero. In 1793, the then young Napoleon became a national hero by leading the recapture of the French port of Toulon from the British which drew the attention of the upper echelons. 'As a reward for his services, the Representatives

Huber, Thomas M. "The Rise of Napoleon" (paper presented at the Command and General Staff College, Fort Lee, Virginia, February 6-7, 2014).

Napoleon Bonaparte is often characterized as one of the most brilliant and influential military leader in all of history. Known mostly for his diminutive stature and extraordinary military skill, Napoleon Bonaparte is commonly recognized today for his great accomplishments and works regarding the country of France. Though he achieved many great things, the successfulness of this leader is often still debated all across the world. Many believe he was unsuccessful and arrogant while others argue that Napoleon’s great skill shaped the world as it is known today. Though there are numerous conflicting viewpoints throughout the world, Napoleon’s successfulness is more prominent, for his reforms to the country of France and military dominance set him apart from all other preceding leaders.

Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia was a major factor in his downfall. In 1812, Napoleon, whose alliance with Alexander I had disintegrated, launched an invasion into Russia that ended in a disastrous retreat from Moscow. Thereafter, all of Europe, including his own allies, Austria and Prussia, united against him. Although he continued to fight, the odds he faced were impossible. In April 1814, Napoleon’s own marshals refused to continue the struggle and stepped down from their positions. During the actual Russian campaign, there were many key factors that greatly impacted his downfall.

How have historians tried to evaluate the ultimate goal of Napoleon I, Emperor of the French? With such a variety of perspectives, there is no single theory that can fully answer the breadth of the question. Instead, kaleidoscopes of opinions that span centuries from Napoleon’s reign to contemporary research give us the best analysis of his ambitions. No matter the era, historian’s opinions of Napoleon shift between admiring his achievements, in varying contexts of establishing order or reorganizing governmental systems, to criticizing his personal lust for power. This essay will discuss the varying opinions by which historians view Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, and his fundamental objective as ruler.