Napoleon Bonaparte Leadership Traits

There is no question in the fact that Napoleon Bonaparte was a significant character in France. However, there have been debates among historians for years around the central question: “Was Napoleon Bonaparte a hero or a villain?” The answer here relies on how one looks upon the situation. Was Napoleon Bonaparte a savior to the French, or was he a tyrant to the French? Although many historians’ answers do rely deeply onto perspective, their answers also lie within which stage of life Napoleon Bonaparte was in, as well as the shift in opinions that come as time changes. Paul Stock and Phillip Dwyer analyze Napoleon Bonaparte’s influence and through the analysis, debate on whether Napoleon Bonaparte should be considered a hero or a villain,

Napoleon Bonaparte was an absolute dictator of France and he shows this by making every decision himself, thinking of himself as better than

Three of the character traits I describe Napoleon are hypocrite, weak, and a great leader. “Napoleon announce that the windmill was to be built after all… Why then asked somebody, had he spoken strongly against it?” (Orwell pg. 51-52). Although at first, Napoleon strongly opposed to Snowball’s idea of the windmill, he later on ordered the animals of the creation of the windmill. Without his subordinate, Squealer, the animals would have suspected something about him. “Once again the animals were conscious of a vague uneasiness. Never to have any dealings with human beings… The four young pigs who had protested when Napoleon abolished the Meetings raised their voice timidly, but they were silenced by a tremendous growling from the dogs” (Orwell

Few humans have ever come as close to ruling over the entirety of Europe as Napoleon Bonaparte did. As the end of the French Revolution drew near, Napoleon Bonaparte did not hesitate long to create policies that kept him in power. With such power, it was certain that Napoleon would use it to influence to people all over Europe. Napoleon’s impact on the people of France and Europe, who he affected through propaganda, his ideas of nationalism and patriotism, and a codification of laws, was a very long-standing and resilient ideology that was mostly prevalent during the French Revolution.

Although Napoleon’s military conquests started off based on the ideals of the French Revolution, Napoleons relentless quest for personal glory lead to a dictatorship. “In Napoleons hands the state had become the instrument of dictatorship.” The Ultimate betrayal was the institution of a hereditary monarchy. This hereditary monarchy began in Napoleons action of crowing himself Emperor and Culminated in his marriage to an Austrian Hapsburg princess “the moment his power became hereditary it cut itself off

Napoleon was born in Corsica, Italy and was entered directly into the Military, at age ten. Napoleon's leadership, and role as emperor, was heavily based around the fact that all of his childhood was being trained in the military! Some people view this in a negative light (seeing other people just as a target, and appreciating human life.) Some people on the other hand, view this in a positive light (Being a good instructor, and knowing how to make the right moves with politics.) During the French revolution the citizens of France tried to create a republic, and when they failed continuously, Napoleon Bonaparte stepped up and became a strong leader in France. In 1799, the government started to grow more and more corrupt, and that's when Napoleon came into play. Napoleon was an

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.

With all the glory and the splendour that some countries may have experienced, never has history seen how only only one man, Napoleon, brought up his country France from its most tormented status, to the very pinnacle of its height in just a few years time. He was a military hero who won splendid land-based battles, which allowed him to dominate most of the European continent. He was a man with ambition, great self-control and calculation, a great strategist, a genius; whatever it was, he was simply the best. But, even though how great this person was, something about how he governed France still floats among people 's minds. Did he abuse his power? Did Napoleon defeat the purpose of the ideals of the French Revolution? After all of his success in his military campaigns, did he gratify the people 's needs regarding their ideals on the French Revolution? This is one of the many controversies that we have to deal with when studying Napoleon and the French Revolution. In this essay, I will discuss my opinion on whether or not was he a destroyer of the ideals of the French Revolution.

In 1796 as a young officer of 27 years old, Napoleon was given command of the French army in Italy. In his proclamation to his troops, Napoleon said, 'The two armies which but recently attacked you with audacity are fleeing before you in terror; the wicked men who laughed at your misery and rejoiced at the thought of the triumphs of your enemies are confounded and trembling.' Acts like this display the strong personality that Napoleon possessed and how his endearing nature captivated his troops. The control and support of the army was effective in enabling Bonaparte to eventually seize power.

One way Napoleon was able to stay in charge was by using Animalism. Napoleon used the seven commandments as a way of Animalism. In the seven commandments humans are presumed as an enemy. Their ways were also speculated as bad, like commandment five which states no animal shall drink alcohol or commandment four which states no animal shall wear clothes. But animals are conjectured as good and the opposite of humans as it states in

Napoleon Bonaparte will remain in the heart of many French nationals as one of the greatest military leaders that the nation has had when it comes to warfare history. In 1799, Napoleon launched a series of wars, which historian call, “Napoleonic wars” in a bid to extend the territory of France in Europe. Many historians argue that the Napoleonic wars were a continuation of the earlier war under the tag, French revolution in 1789. The French revolution in itself had so many influences in Europe, especially with the armies who felt the greatest impact of the revolution. The revolution brought with it many changes, especially in the production of modern mass weapons with the conscription in place. The new improvements in weaponry made Napoleon seek hegemony in the entire Europe sparking his quest to expand and increase the revolutionary and territorial borders of France. Napoleon, Corsican aristocrat, who was a minor, rose to the position of emperor in France because of the revolution and his idea was to sweep the entire Europe with the reforms brought about by the revolution (Dwyer 32). The idea was to liberate the continent so that all citizens had a chance to take the helm of leadership and do away with the issue of kinship rule. Napoleon was a symbol of change, and although at some point, he comes out as a dictator, he was progressive and created rationalization of governance and all the social

Napoleon’s self-defeating actions had a greater impact in his defeat than British strategic performance because of a suboptimal integration of policy, strategy, and operations. First, the Emperor’s political desire for French hegemony led to a strategic overextension from which France was unable to recover. Second, Napoleon’s poor naval strategy inadequately armed the French Navy with a fleet capable of competing with the British Royal Navy. Third, Napoleon’s lack of decentralized execution and his desire for absolute operational control at the organizational level led to his demise. This essay will then examine the counterargument and rebuttal that British strategic performance mattered more to Napoleon’s defeat than the Emperor’s self-defeating actions because of a British strategy of selective engagement.

Napoleon can contribute much of his military success to his Military Maxims. These Military strategies essentially were a set of ideas implemented by Napoleon to pursue desired strategic goals. Napoleon’s Maxims deal with the planning and conduct of campaigns, the movement and moral of troops, and the deception of the enemy. Although Napoleon lists 115 Maxims, three stand out above all others in directly attributing to Napoleon’s victories against such overwhelming opposing forces. These three Maxims coincided with each other, maximizing Napoleon’s army’s effectiveness. The three Maxims were the fifty-seventh, sixtieth and ninetieth; together the Maxims were the driving force behind the success in the military campaign

There is a general consensus amongst historians about Napoleon’s intelligence and his ability to inspire and guide his troops with immense skill. As Michael Broers comments: “it is when historians deny him genius, creative power and acute intelligence, that they fail in their task.” Historians also agree that the French Revolution of 1789 played a critical role in Napoleon’s life by shaping his future aspirations. However, in spite of this broad agreement, there are varying views about how he used his genius in his rise to power. Historians tend to take two sides in their scrutiny of Napoleon as ruler. He is either seen as a saviour, a leader who would preserve the revolution, or a tyrant, a man who saw an opportunity to further his place in the world with the use of

Napoleon seemed to have been seen as a man chosen and destined by god to find victory, though in reality he was a workaholic, and spent long nights carefully drafting his plans for battle. He was careful to maximize his manpower where it counted most. That said, Napoleon saw a value in remaining unpredictable, always maintaining an aggressive stance to force his opponent to respond to his moves. He often determined that the “moment” was more important than manpower. Often, after maneuvering for some time, Napoleon would order his men to charge towards the enemy’s approximate location. Sometimes he himself recalls that the approximation was weak, but it was more important to move quickly and definitely, than to wait for complete intelligence to reveal the true nature of the enemy’s whereabouts. Napoleon did not hold many rules on his troops when on the march, only that they move at a steady pace and stay close together so that they could get into formation quickly. Ultimately, it is clear that Napoleon had a natural gift for choosing the right moves, and furthermore seemed to be at his best when under the pressure of an intense battle, while the commanders of other armies tended to mishap.