Katherine Reisen Western Civilizations
3-11-14 Napoleon vs. Hitler
Throughout history there have been numerous leaders and dictators. Each one leading their country in what they think is the best way. Some went on and were great leaders others were not such great leaders. However two people that I believe were very good leaders were Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler. While Napoleon led his people into terrible revolution and ended up exiled to Saint Helena to live out the duration of his life. He was a brilliant war captain that was very well respected among the military community. Hitler is known as one the worst people that ever lived. He purposely went out and tried to exterminate an entire race, and anyone who wasn’t perfect. However if you think about it Hitler was a genius. He commanded an entire German army and got them to carry out his every demand. In many ways Hitler and Napoleon were very similar, but they were also very different.
Napoleon lived from the years 1769 to 1821. He became commander of the French Army in Italy in 1796 (pg. 589). He then made Austria make peace with Italy. From then he was completely in charge of the French Army as well as being the Emperor of France which gave him even more power. He led his men through great victories, all the while conquering much of Europe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/bonaparte_napoleon.shtml). In 1812 he decided that he wanted to take over Russia. He led his men into the harsh Russian terrain, thinking that they could easily and quickly take down the Russian Army. However he was very wrong. The Russians didn’t engage in any type of battle. Instead they went ahead and made sure that the French could no access any food or shelter, knowi...
... middle of paper ...
... to respect and obey what they wanted. They both led their countries in their own way and expand the territory of their countries. Both Napoleon and Hitler did this through military and political power. They won the hearts and trust of their countries, but they had ulterior motives. They both wanted to expand their countries all while trying to take total control over the world while doing it. Hitler wanted to create a perfect race and in order to do that he had to completely wipe out anyone who he didn’t think was perfect. Napoleon on the other hand didn’t want to eliminate any one race, he just wanted to take over all of Europe and eventually all of the world. Both of these leaders knew what they wanted to accomplish and they knew how go about doing it. I believe that both of these men could arguably be some of the most intelligent military minds that ever lived.
Bonaparte was born in 1769 on the island of Corsica just as France conquered it. At age ten, Napoleon was sent to military school outside Paris. At sixteen, he graduated and became a lieutenant in the artillery. When the French revolution broke out, Napoleon sided with the new government. Along with the help of his army, he dissolved the revolutionary government and made himself emperor. Saying he was saving the Revolution, Napoleon established a new government that stressed equality. Through his prowess, Napoleon greatly enlarged the French Empire. Though he ran...
Napoleon Bonaparte ruled in France from 1789 to 1815. Napoleon came to power in 1789 and immediately became a powerful figure in the French government. However, some thought Napoleon was such a great leader. The Napoleonic Empire started to grow France’s territories. Some might have believed that Napoleon was too eager with his rule, while losing and failing to succeed against the power of England, in an attempt to blockade their trade, and of Russia, where he led his army to a defeat and retreat back to France. Even in his success over Spain, the battle still costed Napoleon and his army in men and resources. Napoleon was mostly viewed as a powerful and militaristic leader in some aspects, but others saw him as a coward and terrible leader in other ways.
Napoleon was a military general that participated in multiple war victories. His interests included history, law, and mathematics. His strengths as a leader benefitted in planning financial, legal, and military plans. His aspiring attitude made him believe he was destined to be the savior of France (Coffin & Stacey, 494). He favored a republic over a constitutional monarchy. When Napoleon came to power, he immediately consolidated personal power by overthrowing the five-man Directory and created a Republic. Napoleon used his status and power during the Revolution to bring out and surface Revolution ideals and help his people. Napoleon’s role in European history was the savior of the French Revolution due to the fact he accomplished most objectives that the people hoped for. Goals of the French Revolution included overthrowing the old regime of an absolute monarch, write a basic and worthy constitution, and give more rights to the third estate and limit the first and second estates power in the Estates-General.
Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were both atrocious people because of what they did, but despite that, they accomplished a great deal of achievements. Accomplishments put aside, I think that Joseph Stalin was worse than Hitler. They both worked hard to get to what they were back in the time of their rule. They both committed endless crimes against humanity, but they accomplished most of what they did with incredible military might and willpower.
Napoleon’s military career is what eventually led to his prominence. Napoleon began his military career above most of the other men his age. He rapidly made his way through the ranks eventually gaining a great support system. As the directory leaned more and more heavily upon the military, a coup d’état developed. Because of his military expertise, he immediately became first consul of France. The empire of France was soon to grow once Napoleon was in reign. In the 1790s the French army was near one million men, an advantage in the Austrian wars as well as future ventures. Wars raged with other European countries in the early 1800s. Napoleon was able to beat the continental coalition, thus gaining territory for France. France annexed some of Italy but also controlled states such as Spain, Holland ...
Great leaders are found on both sides of history, the good side and the bad. Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler were both good leaders, even though they were on different sides of the war. Churchill and Hitler, although very different were both effective leaders because they evaluate and understand the other side’s strengths and weaknesses and are underestimated. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing side is important during war because it means that one is able to use his opponent’s weaknesses against him during war, whether it is military or political. For example, Hitler was very good at using his opponents’ weaknesses against them, and this is evident by how fast he was able to invade Europe. The magnitude of Hitler’s
Napoleon was a great soldier that graduated from military school at the age of sixteen and quickly worked his way through the ranks. Napoleon was a brilliant leader in battle and consistently defeated armies larger than his own; including when he forced the Austrians to make peace after defeating four of their generals. In 1799 Napoleon and his colleagues overtook the French government and established power. He revised the constitution in 1802 to make himself consul for life, and then again in 1804 to make himself Emperor of France. Soon after Napoleon came to power he restructured the administration, simplified the court system, and began monitoring the schooling system; French law was also put in the Napoleon Code which guaranteed the rights and liberties that were gained through the revolution. Napoleons violent behavior caused war with Britain to break out, who allied with Russia and Austria. Prussia later allied themselves with Russia; creating a huge alliances against France and Napoleon. Napoleon successfully extended his reign over large parts of Europe and put each state under the Napoleon Code, which gave citizens new rights and privileges. In 1812 all of Europe turned against Napoleon, which lead to his exile in 1814. He regained power in 1815 just to loose it later that year. He died in exile in Saint Helena in 1821.
When someone thinks of power, two people come to mind: Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Both of these men played an enormous role in history as well as the lives of numerous people. There are several differences and similarities between both powerful men. The two men were the most influential people that change the manner of how people portray others. Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin were part of history in various ways that achieved dictatorship which lead them to be authoritative and dominant in the world that changed during their time.
The person that closely embodied Machiavelli’s “The Prince” was Adolf Hitler. There is more to Adolf Hitler than everyone usually knows. Besides from being one of the most hated people in the history of the world, he had the characteristics of a good leader. The correlation between him, and Machiavelli’s perspective on what a good prince/leader is supposed to be is extremely similar. It is as if Hitler Studied “The Prince” before he began to pursue his rule over Germany. There are several ideas that are presented, to prove this comparison plausible.
Hitler did many unthinkable horrible things during his lifetime. Adolf Hitler was a man with great dreams and has great leadership qualities. Hitler is considered as the most hated and evil person in the history mainly because of the Holocaust. We should be a man like Hitler in his brilliance and should not be like him in his beliefs.
Napoleon was born in Corsica and went to military school where at that time France was at war with Britain, Austria and Russia. Being in the military he led the French army and achieved victory from the Austrians in 1797 who also negotiated with other nations such as Britain (MORAN 6-22). He established a new Napoleon code which had traditional laws resembling the new revolution in France. He later crowned himself emperor of France and combined social rehabilitation with his own arbitrary power. He also worked a covenant with the Catholic Church where there was a purification of Napoleon and Empress Josephine, who was from a wealthy family. His rise created a new empire which covered much of Europe apart from Britain (MORAN 6-22). He used his family, relatives and friends to power the European countries, hence to why his pride and aspiration led Europe to unite against him. His fall was brought by the detested of French rule all over
Josef Stalin, a politician from the earliest beginnings of his life, strove to achieve a national sense of power during his reign over the citizens of Russia. Adolf Hitler, however, a born high school dropout somewhat longed for a place in life. He rather fell into his role as a politician, after his brief shortcomings in arts and sciences. These two individuals developed varying ideas to put their controlling minds to work to lead their political parties in the direction of total domination of the state.
One of their persuasive similarities is their charisma, which they both used in speeches to get people to follow them. Hitler was very charismatic when he did his speeches and got many people to follow him, and eventually became Chancellor of Germany, and led on to leading the Nazi invasion. He was very dramatic in his speeches and used the fears and prejudices already held by the German people. Napoleon was very charismatic in his speeches also, because he was very charismatic and motivational while
I believe that there are three main character traits that define a good leader; their ability to move a nation with their speeches, their ability to think about and plan for the future of their people and nation, and their ability to be able to command the nation 's forces correctly. All good and well defining character traits that I believe that Adolf Hitler possessed when he came to power in Germany during January 1933.
Before being fighter, Napoleon was a brilliant statesman, he knew what he wanted and aligned the necessary resources accordingly. The use of military force was for him the last resort. After having exhaust political means, he committed the maximum possible force to maximize the chance of the success of his campaign. He avoided making the same error than Austrians who have engaged against him, in 1796, only a segment of the available forces then a second and a third, what was easy to defeat in the