/lit/ - Literature

>>8115993
A similar issue is when people try to judge people in the past while holding views and opinions of today, so many generals of the past and powerful people would be considered abhorrent by "intellectuals" today. Always reminded of this debate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQ4TcTcPbI
at one point they talk about Napoleon taking some Egyptian city, I think it was. Napoleon's step-son or some family member had begged of him to spare the city's inhabitants, and Napoleon had agreed. When he approached the city and sent his messenger inside to ask for surrender, they took the messenger and brutally tortured him. I think they ended up putting his head on a spike or something like that. Either way, Napoleon was furious and the siege on the city began. After the city was taken, he let his army run amok inside, pillaging and raping and so on. I think it was both the man Andrews was debating and the spineless moderator in the debate who said what Napoleon did was awful when really it was the only outcome. After they killed the messenger like that, Napoleon's hands were tied. Either he let his men do to the city what the city had done to one of them, or he spared them all, following the wishes of his family member, while being seen as weak because he did not punish the enemy for harming the messenger. Imagine what transgressions could be dealt upon Napoleon afterwards if he did not punish them.

Fuck that idiotic moderator, and his smug British accent.