Napoleon - why was he so "great"?

[Phidippides]

Certain leaders throughout history have it - leadership, bravery, mastery of command.  One of these legendary leaders was Napoleon.  In an episode of his life which illustrates his aura, we see him going on his way toward Paris after having escaped from being placed on an islandic exile.  He is intercepted by troops who are charged with capturing him.  From Wikipedia:

Napoleon approached the regiment alone, dismounted his horse and, when he was within earshot of Ney's forces, shouted "Soldiers of the Fifth, you recognize me. If any man would shoot his emperor, he may do so now". Following a brief silence, the soldiers shouted "Vive L'Empereur!" and marched with Napoleon to Paris. He arrived on 20 March, quickly raising a regular army of 140,000 and a volunteer force of around 200,000 and governed for a Hundred Days.

Who else is utterly amazed by this?  What kind of man is able to persuade his captors to change allegiance through a mere speech?  Why do you think Napoleon had such command of his fellow countrymen?  What was it about him that inspired those under his command?

[DonaldBaker]

He was a natural born leader.  He commanded respect, and he was feared.  Adding to this, he was successful militarily save for the combined might of Europe withstanding him.  He made his men feel invincible, and it was a feeling they enjoyed.

[Stumpfoot]

Charisma. Some people have a charismatic personality that draws people to them. You see it all the time. Some of us stand on the outside looking in thinking what's going on? Why would they follow Hitler? Stalin? Gangus kahn? Or in more modern times, Jim Jones? It happens and when it's all said and done we are wondering how it could have.

[Phidippides]

I think that charisma is definitely a part of it.  I also think that it requires an element of military intelligence (Napoleon), as well as timing (Hitler).  This is an interesting topic, and I think I'll make a new thread on it.

[Stumpfoot]

I think that charisma is definitely a part of it.  I also think that it requires an element of military intelligence (Napoleon), as well as timing (Hitler).  This is an interesting topic, and I think I'll make a new thread on it.

All good points, you can have all the charisma in the world but if you dont have the mind for it or history is not ready for you, then it wont matter.

[skiguy]

I think Napolean was great up until he crowned himself emperor and decided to become France's dictator. Then France went on a very fast downhill ride after that.
Was it partially (or mostly) Napolean's fault that the British became much more militarily and economically powerful than France, or were the British already there?   One has to cite the Industrial Revolution.  The British started it and were very successful because they didn't have the strict import/export regulations that Napoleonic France did. By the time Continental France got on board, machinery and labor was expensive.

[scout1067]

One has to cite the Industrial Revolution.  The British started it and were very successful because they didn't have the strict import/export regulations that Napoleonic France did.

If you really look at the history of it, the French started the Industrial Revolution.  It was an outgrowth of the Republican attempts to rationalize military production and supply the huge army created by the Levee en Masse.  Paris in the 1790's was a huge workshop turning out all the equipment required for the army.

As to Napoleon, the reason he inspired such loyalty is that he had both charisma and intelligence as well as a record of success.  He could point to his past accomplishments and the glory he brought France.  I would guess if America had produced a leader such as he, many would follow him too.  Napoleon's problem is that he did not know when to quit.

[DonaldBaker]

Have to differ here.  The Industrial Revolution began in England.  The Continent lagged behind considerably even while Napoleon was in power.

[Phidippides]

I think Napolean was great up until he crowned himself emperor and decided to become France's dictator. Then France went on a very fast downhill ride after that.

I think that Napoleon's move to abandon his forces in Egypt around 1799 was a really odd decision.  He doesn't even tell the general under him, Jean Baptiste Kleber, that he's leaving?  What's up with that?  Can you imagine Kleber's reaction when he finds that his superior just "took off" while you have the British coming at you from one side and the Ottomans from the other?

[cadremum]

"Let France have great mothers, and she will have great sons" Napoleon
 Maria-Letizia Ramolino, his dear old mum can take some of the credit, if nothing else she instilled a sense of urgency, drive, and nationalism in her son. Drive is as important as charisma and timing, the ability to labor without immediate gratification for a lofty, future reward. Kind of like graduate school I imagine!

I think that Napoleon's move to abandon his forces in Egypt around 1799 was a really odd decision.  He doesn't even tell the general under him, Jean Baptiste Kleber, that he's leaving?  What's up with that?

Wasn't there some sort of urgent crisis in France? I think the unreliability of messages at the time meant he would have stayed in Egypt if had he received word sooner.

[scout1067]

I think Napolean was great up until he crowned himself emperor and decided to become France's dictator. Then France went on a very fast downhill ride after that.

I think that Napoleon's move to abandon his forces in Egypt around 1799 was a really odd decision.  He doesn't even tell the general under him, Jean Baptiste Kleber, that he's leaving?  What's up with that?  Can you imagine Kleber's reaction when he finds that his superior just "took off" while you have the British coming at you from one side and the Ottomans from the other?

That was kind of like when MacArthur left the Phillipines with the difference that Mac had to get a direct Presidential order to leave Corregidor.