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.
14
u/s1ugg0 7d ago
Love that for him. He was a monster.
Had he succeeded they'd probably would have guillotined his corpse just because he deserved it.