/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18162516]

best mythologies/biographies/memoirs of this king?

[Anonymous No.18162568]

>>18162516
grow up . God I hate napoleon and hero worshippers. Why don’t you find his grave and suck his skeleton dick if you love him so much, then kill yourself because your life of idolatry will be complete. That being said, the andrew roberts biography is good and what anyone else here will recommend

[Anonymous No.18162575]

>>18162568
why do you hate napoleon?

[Anonymous No.18162581]

For me, it's King George Washington

[Anonymous No.18162610]

>>18162516
Andrew Roberts.
I love Napoleon too, but do we need to have this thread every single day?

[Anonymous No.18162619]

>>18162568
>grow up .
Says the anon who just sperged out over something they dont care about.

[Anonymous No.18162693]

>>18162575
Because he is nothing more than an amoral scumbag who happened to be born with the right abilities in the right time and place to become the object of all incel’s idol worship for the next few centuries. He didn’t do anything that makes him worthy of praise. There’s nothing about his character or motivations that make him even remotely a good person, he was just a skilled military commander who was willing to take advantage of a revolution he didn’t care about and to kill french citizens and anyone he pleased to gain power and become like his own heroes from ancient histories. It’s all godless vanity.

[Anonymous No.18162723]

>>18162693
just like robespierre, who was notoriously successful, right?

[Anonymous No.18162744]

>>18162723
what’s your point

[Anonymous No.18162782]

>>18162693
what's most significant about napoleon is his institution of the napoleonic code. it was quickly adopted by all of europe and then spread all across the globe. what it did was replace the old monarchy style legal system with our modern conceptions of rights and law. In this sense I consider him a highly moral man and hero. This also contradicts the right's understanding of him as "epic dictator." this is an incredibly shallow and false understanding. napoleon can be considered "on the left" because he expanded the rights of citizens. those "incels" worshipping him only know the aesthetic of him conveyed in op's image, they have no knowledge of history.

[Anonymous No.18162815]

>>18162782
his liberalism and atheism are part of the problem

[Anonymous No.18162927]

>>18162516
This millennium Patrick Rambaud's trilogy is fantastic

[Anonymous No.18162937]

>>18162516
He literally wrote memoirs you can read

[Anonymous No.18162949]

>>18162516
I'm convinced incels and loners on this board and similar boards are obsessed with this man by voyeurism. They cannot escape their own pathetic existences so they imagine themselves in the shoes of Napoleon.

[Anonymous No.18162977]

>>18162516
Yes.

[Anonymous No.18162981]

>>18162815
his achievements won't be undone. any attempt to "destroy the napoleonic code" will be a mere larp

[Anonymous No.18162988]

>>18162977
based

[Anonymous No.18163023]

>>18162949
that's what everything is anon. you just choose more faggy models. you don't know anything except by mimesis.

[Anonymous No.18163146]

>>18162949
>Every young book-eating intellectual like the young Bonaparte, could from then on see the sky as his limit and the laurels surrounding his monogram. Every businessman from then on had a name for his ambition: to be - the cliché is still used today - a "Napoleon of finance or industry." All common men were moved by the phenomenon - the only one up to then - of a common man who became greater than all those born to wear a crown. Napoleon gave ambition a proper name at the time when the double revolution had opened the world to ambitious men. In a word, he was the figure that every man who breaks with tradition would identify with in his dreams.
>-Hobsbawm, The Age of Revolution.

[Anonymous No.18163162]

>>18162516
he was an emperor not a king

[Anonymous No.18163516]

>>18162693
>>18162568
Just say that you dont like greatness and you would much rather have all human beings hooked up to an iv and endorphin drip for all eternity.

[Anonymous No.18163517]

>>18162568

[Anonymous No.18163529]

>>18162568
You women are just mad you'll never have anyone even 1/20th as cool as Napoleon

[Anonymous No.18163532]

>>18163146
Napoleon as a 'great man' is a historical myth.

[Anonymous No.18163534]

>>18163517
says the faggot who killed himself when he realised he failed

[Anonymous No.18163537]

>>18163532
but he is great by the definition of great in terms of magnitude.

Unless you are so myopic that great simply means petty positivity in your conception.

[Anonymous No.18163543]

>>18163534
this nigger thinks mishima was literally planning to reinstate the literal empire

[Anonymous No.18163545]

>>18163534
yes, and he did it in a cool way. What are you going to do? rope yourself lone, or die in an old folks house by way of irritable bowel syndrome?

[Anonymous No.18163555]

>>18163537
hundreds of thousands of little coincidences, occurrences, happenings involving millions of people, all the way from kings and queens down to lowly russian peasants played a part in propagating the myth of Napoleon the 'great man' who changed the world

in reality he is just a pawn like everyone else. historians latch onto him as some great influencer when he was nothing of the sort. it was everyone around him that changed the world, he was just the sharp bit at the end of the stick that others pushed

[Anonymous No.18163587]

>>18163555
a good leader knows he is a tool of those he leads.

[Anonymous No.18163595]

>>18163587
yeah but on the other hand "people refuse to obey those who are incapable of command; obedience is a lesson taught by a commander, because it takes the right sort of leader to inculcate the right sort of compliance" - plutarch
ur a tool of urself

[Anonymous No.18163621]

>>18163555
>in reality he is just a pawn like everyone else.
true, but then thats all perspectivism without ends. the same line of thought could come out to point at everything being great as well. You are just shouwing a different perspective. Napoleon very well may just be the sharp bit at the end of a stick, but that greater whole is in gestalt Napoleon too.

And that is what "greatness" in most senses is, a gestalt particularization that is dependent on historical contingencies. if a butterfly actually flew to the right instead of the left in 1789, it could have been Jean Kléber ruling a french republic as a wartime presedent in arms and we would be calling him a "great".

Just because something is situationally great does not dampan its innate greatness. Unless we bring into question the very essence of the term, and if we did, we should be getting ride of any modifiers. But seeing as humans we do not base things merely on sensation, but also ideas that form from them, I find the idea of greatness an inescapable one that people did and do portray reality through.

[Anonymous No.18163680]

>>18163621
>Just because something is situationally great does not dampan its innate greatness

it does when historians try to categorise napoleon as some kind of ubermensch that bended the world to his will

[Anonymous No.18165311]

>>18163555
stop projecting your inferiority complex on everything holy fuck

[Anonymous No.18166272]

>>18162693
he was actually really fond of the revolution at the beginning, once he was arrested and almost guillotined he became more disillusioned with it

[Anonymous No.18166294]

>>18162815
he wasn't an atheist, he was always more of a deist but was somewhat close to the catholic church, for example he always attended mass at military school, he willingly became the godfather of one of his soldiers at his baptism during the egypt campaign, and he always referred to the pope as 'holy father' even though it pissed the directory off, later on st. helena he reconciled with the church and defended Christ as more than a man, he was also a mohammed fanboy

[Anonymous No.18166339]

>>18163555
what is this way of thinking called? that everything positive you -or anyone else- do is only because of circumstance and human will has no significant part in it?

[Anonymous No.18166372]

Emerson wrote an essay on him in the style of Plutarch that I quite like.

[Anonymous No.18166458]

>>18166339
leftism, it is the true difference between them and the rest; they do not believe an individual has agency

[Anonymous No.18166925]

>>18162568
>find his grave and suck his skeleton dick
this isn't an insult. I would if I could

[Anonymous No.18166933]

>>18162693
Literally who are you?

A pleb whining about a patrician

[Anonymous No.18166948]

>>18163532
Angry anglo cuck

[Anonymous No.18167288]

>>18162516
Baron de Marbot's memoirs are based. Focused on the battles he participated in.

[Anonymous No.18167320]

the one by andrew roberts, the battle descriptions are not the best but he did a great job portraying the human Napoleon Bonaparte. the people itt saying Napoleon wasn't anything special but just the right man at the right time should really read that book. the man had great command of his mind and worked tirelessly. the sheer amount of letters he wrote, and the breadth of topics in those letters, are nothing but impressive

[Anonymous No.18167397]

>>18162949
have you even read crime and punishment

[Anonymous No.18167689]

>>18162568
>>18162693
t. low test

[Anonymous No.18168251]

>>18163545
>die in an old folks house by way of irritable bowel syndrome?

Didn't mishima irritate his bowels to death?

[Anonymous No.18168274]

>>18163555
We all read War and Peace too, we don't need its talking points.

[Anonymous No.18168352]

>>18162568
He was cremated

[Anonymous No.18169212]

>>18168352
napoleon wasn't cremated, he's in a big ass coffin in some monument in paris

[Anonymous No.18169242]

>>18162977
Unfiltered

[Anonymous No.18169481]

Currently reading Zamoyski's Napoleon Biography and it's got very well written, with each chapter having a clear purpose and structure. I'd definitely reccomend it regardless of whether you're well read on Napoleon or it's your first serious book about him.

[Anonymous No.18169493]

Currently reading Zamoyski's Napoleon Biography and it's very well written, with each chapter having a clear purpose and structure. I'd definitely reccomend it regardless of whether you're well read on Napoleon or it's your first serious book about him.

[Anonymous No.18169539]

>>18163555
>”why yes I get my historical analysis from novels, how could you tell?”
Tolstoy wasn’t a historian, he was a slavophile propagandist.

[Anonymous No.18169651]

>>18166339
determinism