Started By
Message

re: Napoleon

Posted on 12/2/23 at 10:00 pm to
Posted by xGeauxLSUx
United States of Atrophy
Member since Oct 2008
21024 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 10:00 pm to
quote:

Completely immasculates the man whom an era is named after.

You know he was a cuck in real life, right?
Posted by aggressor
Austin, TX
Member since Sep 2011
8714 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 10:01 pm to
If you go in with low expectations and aren't looking for historical accuracy it's not bad.

They made him seem like an idiot and a cuck way too much, and more than that not terribly smart. In reality he was absolutely brilliant and that seemed to really get lost.

They spent a lot of time on the Josephine stuff which I get, it's Hollywood, it just screwed up the flow and since she died before Waterloo it really didn't work.

The battle scenes are great, did a good job of showing strategy and while somewhat graphic they weren't focused on just being gore either.

Mainly though they just didn't explain what was going on very well and tell the bigger picture. It was a like he just kind of showed up here or there randomly instead of really fleshing out the history and what was going on with France and the other powers. They flirted with it but it came out very jumbled and didn't really make sense.

Considering the crap that comes out of Hollywood today? It's pretty good. If you are looking for another Gladiator? Uh, no.
Posted by Champagne
Already Conquered USA.
Member since Oct 2007
48462 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 10:20 pm to
Here's a link to one of the few books in English that cover Napoleon's 1805 Grand Armee vs. Austria and Russia. Note that the book is obtainable only as a used book. I think it may be out of print.

IMHO, this is the consequence of a political prejudice against Napoleon himself. This book is a balanced and detailed military history of the mind and methods of Napoleon and his invincible army of 1805-1806. That's why books like this one are not readily available in the English language - English-speaking people by and large do not care to read about a Frenchman/Corsican being History's Greatest Soldier.

That's why this film Napoleon, created by a Englishman, it not going to treat this subject like a truly objective military historian like Scott Bowden. There is indeed, IMHO, a bit of prejudice involved here. Americans and Englishmen admire the German armies of the 20th Century, but, think that Napoleon was a short tyrannical loser.

Bowden's book

LINK
Posted by sta4ever
The Pit
Member since Aug 2014
15290 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 10:48 pm to
I was kind of disappointed in the film. I thought it did focus too much on his love life. I wanted more on the history and the wars. It did also paint him to be more of a lunatic and an idiot.
Posted by wackatimesthree
Member since Oct 2019
4206 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 10:50 pm to
Haven't seen it.

I did like Napoleon Dynamite, though.
Posted by Boss13
Mobile
Member since Oct 2016
1169 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 11:05 pm to
Yes, he was, but that was not who he was. He did not leave Egypt because his wife was sleeping with another man. He left Egypt to seize power.

They had fricked up relationship for sure, and they both cheated on the other, but his life did not revolve around her.
Posted by Leto II
Arrakis
Member since Dec 2018
21410 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 11:08 pm to
It was ok.i had a little trouble grasping it because they moved through characters so quickly, especially at the beginning. Good movie but probably not one I need to see again
Posted by Leto II
Arrakis
Member since Dec 2018
21410 posts
Posted on 12/2/23 at 11:09 pm to
quote:

I wanted more on the history and the wars.

I think that’s my biggest complaint
Posted by Tarps99
Lafourche Parish
Member since Apr 2017
7536 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 7:45 am to
quote:

Napoleon


I heard he was a short guy that like to stick his hand in his shirt, will it be a short film?
This post was edited on 12/3/23 at 7:47 am
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65147 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 7:49 am to
quote:

You know he was a cuck in real life, right?



But is that why we remember him?
Posted by jackamo3300
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2004
2901 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 9:38 am to
Won't be watching since it appears the movie was made with a typical Hollywood agenda.

Swore off Hollywood historical efforts, after The Kingdom of Heaven - also by Ridley Scott - a totally fictionalized account about the Crusaders against Saladin, in which Saladin was presented as all that is good with humankind and the Crusaders were depicted as racist trogs who should've stayed out the Holy Land and left that wonderful culture to its own devices.

With particularly extreme contempt and malice shown toward the Templars.

Curiously, Richard the Lion-hearted was given a minor role in the film even though Saladin respected his prowess above all others.

They obviously decided that showing the truth about his successes against Saladin didn't fit the narrative, since he was the Crusader who it is said at least achieved a stalemate against Saladin and would've eventually won against him had he not needed to leave the crusade to go back to his country to prevent his brother from taking over his reign.

Hear that they even made Oppenheimer into a sympathetic figure.

Anything good about Napoleon and his wars of vanity are in the minority.

His most notables were his incursion into Egypt with his successful Battle of the Pyramids and the look that the savants accompanying his expeditions gave the world of Egypt at the time with their amazing, detailed sketches they made of the area, especially within the Great Pyramid.

He even spent a night by himself in Cheops' burial chamber in which he experienced something so unusual - whether self-induced or not - in which he refused to go into detail about with his generals. Giving rise to much speculation over the centuries. Something even on his death bed he refused to tell, saying that "you wouldn't believe me anyway."

But according to Napoleon himself, it was his compilation and writing of the Civil Code that he admits he was most proud of, still used in Louisiana.

His most destructive action was against his own people.

He was singularly responsible for that small country, France, having lost over 600,000 of its best men in his vanity wars.

Did they really have that much left to even get involved in WWI and II.

While he was establishing his "empire" it surely allowed him to be absent conveniently from France during the Reign of Terror when the Jacobins Robespierre and Saint Just were sending all those innocent people to the guillotine.

Napoleon had been associated with the murderous Jacobins, so it was a prudent move for him to be away from it all while the blood was flowing. They executed about 17,000 people in a country that could least afford such a loss.

Until it was Robespierre's and Saint Just's turn to walk up those steps. It's said that Saint Just was in line right behind Robespierre and cried like a baby at what he was about to face.

Napoleon was even arrested for treason after the end of the Reign of Terror.

But apparently he had a charisma that just wouldn't quit, which few leaders have been able to boast of over the centuries.
Posted by Gray Tiger
Prairieville, LA
Member since Jan 2004
36512 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 9:59 am to
It's a piece of shite movie. Some of the battle scenes were great, but the rest is just crap. Napoleon Dynamite is a way better movie.


Posted by LazarusJohnson
Member since Mar 2022
142 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:09 am to
I think you might need to brush up on crusader history baw, pretty stupid rant against Kingdom of Heaven. I think the movie does a great job with the fall of The Kingdom of Jerusalem, shows the corruption and power hungry mistakes that brought on the fall.

And King Richard is at the end because he 'took the cross' in the crusade to recapture the Levant.

You got some serious brain worms man, could we possibly talk you into joining the libs? You'll fit right in.
This post was edited on 12/3/23 at 10:20 am
Posted by NorfolkTiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Dec 2007
351 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:25 am to
If you want to know more about Napoleon you need to read Napoleon: A Life by Roberts. It’s lengthy but reads really well. Unlike other biographies Roberts had access to all Napoleon’s personal and official correspondence. After reading it I realized everything I was taught in school about him was mostly British propaganda.

He really did revolutionize military organization and his corps system is still used today. He made a number of political blunders mainly the “Continental” economic system. The biggest problem for him was the old monarchs were never going to accept him, they saw him as a peasant.
Posted by I20goon
about 7mi down a dirt road
Member since Aug 2013
13006 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:37 am to
quote:

What separated him from other general's on the battlefield? I'm curious...
1. Timing. Can't say it better than that guy had the best military timing of all time.

2. Contingencies, and not just for negatives.
A) He never really assumed he was going to win so always planned for worst case.
B) he often got "double whammys" out of success because he always planned for the exploitation of any succes.

Often his contingency for failure was the same as for success (e.g. light calvary held in close reserve, hidden, to cover the retreat of artillery if bad and wreak havoc on any breakthrough). It was his use of timing in deployment of that contingency that brought it together.
Posted by Padme
Member since Dec 2020
6219 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:40 am to
quote:

the old monarchs were never going to accept him, they saw him as a peasant.


Some things never change. Even with Caesar, the people loved him, but the elite insiders had him assassinated

Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65147 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:41 am to
quote:

I think you might need to brush up on crusader history baw, pretty stupid rant against Kingdom of Heaven.


I think YOU might need to brush up on yours, my friend. Talk to any historian of the Crusades and they will tell you that Kingdom of Heaven is a particularly inaccurate portrayal of the time period. And while I can't speak to the corruption and power hungry mistakes of the Kingdom of Jerusalem before the fall of the city to Saladin, I do know for a fact that the Archbishop of Jerusalem was done dirty by Ridley Scott. He's portrayed as a sniveling coward when in point of fact he was instrumental in the defense of the city as well as the ransoming of Christians after the city's fall to prevent them from falling into slavery.
Posted by VOR
Member since Apr 2009
63650 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:42 am to
Indeed he was flawed. I consider waging war in order to declare and maintain oneself as “emperor” to be a flaw. But that’s me.
Posted by beaux duke
Member since Oct 2023
425 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 10:45 am to
quote:

There are zero tits


All I needed to know, will not be watching,thanks man.
Posted by LazarusJohnson
Member since Mar 2022
142 posts
Posted on 12/3/23 at 11:39 am to
It takes a real savant to crawfish and still masquerade as correct.

Saladin is across the board one of the most respected military leaders in history. He DID defeat the kingdoms army in open battle before the seige and DID allow the Christian defenders leave the city once the city was surrendered. (We slaughtered a lot of people when we took Jerusalem 200 years earlier btw)

The movie does a good job bringing to life the DOCUMENTED power struggles between rival nobilities and knights organizations that crippled the Kingdom.

Just admit you're a boomer/zoomer that shot off a bullshite, shallow, ignorant opinion.
This post was edited on 12/3/23 at 11:47 am
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram