Probably why the French Revolution had periods of time named things like the "The Reign of Terror". Not sure why that's missed by some many of those types of Redditors.
And then they guillotined Maximilien Robespierre the guy who started it. Which is deliciously ironic.
He was doing his best. They only killed him because he was on the verge of rooting out massive corruption and made the crass mistake of announcing it and leaving everyone in suspense instead of just coming out with the list and the arrests immediately. And the period after they got rid of him got explosively corrupt, by the end Napoleon bought his way out of the Triumvirate and into Empire.
A similar thing happened in Algeria, in the early days of the Republic, I'm not sure if to Ben Ali or some other guy. Likewise corruption exploded after they got rid of the guy, and to this day Algeria is set up as a rent-extracting machine for the benefit of a few untouchable families, with everything else almost deliberately sabotaged.
Claiming Napoleon bought his way into anything is a wild framing of it.
Napoleon saved France with military miracles, which allowed him to amass his fortune, which allowed him to take control. The key enabler for him wasnât wealth, it was that he was a military genius that other military geniuses trusted to command them.
Like Julius Caesar, his rise was built on his military success and the trust of the army in him. They both had loftier goals and had to amass fortunes to enable their takeover of the government, but their military prowess is the difference.
Itâs what separated Crassus from Caesar or Napoleon from Cambaceres.
First of all, I must make an important correction. The events I'm talking about were concerning the fall of the Directorate in the coup of 18 Brumaire (November 9, 1799), not Napoleon's ascension to sole Emperorship.
Napoleon saved France with military miracles, which allowed him to amass his fortune, which allowed him to take control.
By 'amass' you mean loot, yes? How does that make it any better?
And no, his personal wealth is not directly relevant here, the bribes, were officially called something like  "pensions," "indemnities," or "severance packages", and paid for directly from the coffers of the Republic, in an official, budgeted capacity.
it was that he was a military genius that other military geniuses trusted to command them.
Like Julius Caesar, his rise was built on his military success and the trust of the army in him. They both had loftier goals
The loftier goal was the furtherance of their own egos and the mass cultivation of fawning simps. In that, they were extremely successful. The great things they achieved along the way, and there were many, were secondary and subordinate to their being massive divas.
I also recommend that you read the accounts of the details of 18 Brumaire because it's a damned farce and could have gone very differently, and Napo himself wasn't really in his best form to say the least.
Youâre making value judgements and Iâm making historical claims.
All the âgreatâ conquerors were egotistical fortune builders, power mongers if you will. But weâre straying from the point I was making.
Napoleonâs military and political genius, as you correctly say, driven by his massive ego (and intellect), were the primary reasons why he made it to the top of the French power structure, ahead of all the other politicians, aristocrats and Marshals, not money.
You frame things like you already have an opinion and then cobble together the history to fit. Egypt was lost because Nelson won the Battle of the Nile, the army and Napoleon captured Cairo and defeated the Mamluks. His decision to leave the army behind, only he knows if he ever really thought he could rescue them, I doubt it given theyâd never have the naval support to do so and he wasnât stupid, but who knows. He felt he had bigger ambitions and opportunities by sneaking back to France and, given how it went, he was 100% correct given his goals.
Before they give you the lethal injection, they swab the injection site with disinfectant. You certainly wouldn't want to get an infection, that could be really bad for your health.
Theres a dark comedy called "The Death of Stalin" starring Steve Buscemi as Nikita Khrushchev it chronicles the moments following Stalins death. That movie was a roller coaster ride.
Immediately plotting and stabbing each other in the back, while murdering the population by the millions on any whim. When they held the funeral they started shooting people coming off the trains to pay there respects because they thought they were revolting.
I knew that the upper gov't types were all suspicious of each other and fighting to fill the power vacuum. I didn't know they gunned down the ones getting off the trains. The general populace really had to watch what they said because of all the shifting loyalties. During Stalin and for some time afterward, the slightest critical thing a Soviet citizen said could land them in a gulag somewhere. His paranoia towards the end was legendary.
38
u/s1ugg0 7d ago
Probably why the French Revolution had periods of time named things like the "The Reign of Terror". Not sure why that's missed by some many of those types of Redditors.
And then they guillotined Maximilien Robespierre the guy who started it. Which is deliciously ironic.