@ABWorsham:
In truth, though, I feel that Napoleon and Alexander the Great are very much underestimated, especially Napoleon.
Read up on Napoleon’s work, especially all that he did for the French people. Imagine the effects he could’ve had if he hadn’t invaded Russia… or if he lived longer…
I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.
Hannibal fought Rome without his nation’s full support and time after time won.
Napoleon bagged Europe, destroyed the Holy Roman Empire. Should he get discredited for attacking Russia, a country so vast that it lacks any vital objectives. The Russians did not defeat him, Jack Frost did.
Napoleon did more than that. He brought law and order to a France in ruins and on multiple occasions tried to force Britain to the peace table. As I’ve said repeatedly, I’m convinced that the wars he fought were of defensive nature against hostile European monarchs. His personal genius also bears mention: he could dictate to four secretaries on four separate letters without losing track of what he was saying to all four!
Yes, he failed in Russia, but he still won nearly sixty battles! And some of those he won brilliantly even AFTER the invasion of Russia!
If I wasn’t restricted to World War II leaders I would always pick Napoleon, one of the greatest military minds to have ever existed. It’s very fascinating to speculate on what kind of leader he would be in the 20th century. Unfortunately he gets a bad stain in history for the Russian invasion and for his “tyranny” over Europe, but I suppose history is written by the victors.
I think Hannibal and Napoleon, while history gives both credit, are not given the amount of fame and acknowledgement they deserve.
I don’t think so: more books have been written on Napoleon than any other historical figure in history, except for Jesus Christ himself!