MovieChat Forums > Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009) Discussion > Napoleon one of the bad guys??

Napoleon one of the bad guys??

posted 14 years ago by karakoima
26 replies | jump to latest

I'm not American, English nor French, I'm from another european country, and I was quite surprised, watching this movie with my two kids, that Napoleon was put up as "evil" alongside Ivan the terrible an Al Capone.

Is that the general US view of Bonaparte? For sure, British historicans, and British people seem to disqualify him, but I was surprised to see that it seems to be the US view of Napoleon. Revolutionary activities around 1800...

In my "neutral" country, Napoleon is generally held in high regard. For sure, he was a military commander (an ingenious one) at the time of the French revolution, and was as rough as other commanders in war situations. But he made a lot of good things for France and for organisation, education an law in general. Maybe the screenplay writers read the english Google aritcle about Napoleon, where he is more or less compared to Hitler. Well...

[–] Drenalin27 14 years ago

Napoleon was crazy. He is put in the same category as Hitler.

[–] Danily 14 years ago

Napoleon was NOT like Hitler. He was a brilliant military strategist. Every European war against Napoleon was started because OTHER countries feared his power.

My blog: http://its-only-common-sense.blogspot.com

[–] SpacePirateRita 14 years ago

Wtf? Pick up a history book sometime. Seriously? Napoleon in the same category as Hitler? I think you're crazy.

[–] rgross 14 years ago

In the US, not being a figure that directly interacted with US history, Napoleon gets covered but not all that much beyond his ambitions towards conquest. So he essentially gets lumped in with Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, Hitler, and other potential world conquerers. So he does not really get compared to Hitler for atrocities as much as for his military ambition. His efforts on the Russian front get similarly compared as well.

That said, anyone who directly compares Napoleon and Hitler probably only paid mild attention in class, I would assume.

[–] Drenalin27 14 years ago

There are many similarities between Hitler and Napoleon. In high school for Advanced Senior History one of the assignments was to read a book about how these two are alike. They were both power hungry and and were indifferent to human lives. Do a little research.

[–] rgross 14 years ago

Drenalin27: I assure you I have 'done a little research', and I assure you it was more than a reading assignment for an Advance Senior History class.

If you will again read my post, I already agreed with the similarities in desire for conquest. But indifferent to human lives? I think you were ill served by your advanced class. Napoleon would never have considered the systematic extermination of an entire race (or several races). Hitler's programs of 'ethnic cleansing' and other ambitions put him on a level Napoleon could not touch. Power hungry, yes. But Napoleon evil? I guess it depends on your definition. When you get down to it you could probably make a far better comparison between Napoleon and Julius Caesar than between Napoleon and Hitler. Perhaps you could do a paper on it.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rgross 14 years ago

Actually, the whole idea of French troops damaging the Sphinx is a common urban legend. In earlier times people used to blame Alexander the Great. There are artist renderings of the Sphix from before Napoleon's time that show the nose already gone, so that disproves that.

Egyptian Arab historians recorded that it was done my a Muslim extreemist who was later hanged for the act. But no one really knows for sure.

But we do know it was not Napoleon.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Drenalin27 14 years ago

It's a good thing we had an expert of history here to answer all our tough questions.

[–] SpikeHat 14 years ago

OP: It's interesting to get your viewpoint in this thought-provoking thread. To your point, many Americans identify Napoleon as a short French military guy with his hand tucked into his vest. A popular stereotype is the mental patient who believes he is Bonaparte, and that could be why Napoleon is associated with goofiness. So, I believe he is included in this film simply for comic relief (much like in Bill&Ted's Excellent Adventure).

I agree with some posters, that Napoleon would not exactly line up with the worst characters in history. NB's brilliant military strategy is still studied by generals, but he wasn't an angel either.
We also heard from other posters who are batshi+ crazy, saying NB was as bad as $hitler Those debaters may certainly "do a little research" while they have a computer on their crotch.

[–] foton 11 years ago

I agree with that ..I am Egyptian by the way ..In fact the Napoleonic campain on Egypt brought more favours than evils to Egyptian people & history ..He wasn't an angel for sure and used to put clergy Azhari scholars in sacks and throw them into the Nile ... just because they resisted his invasion ..But on the other side his invasion brought the Egyptian people together for the first time since the Ottoman entered Egypt about 300 years before it ..Eventually , Egyptians were able to start again their own independence & modern civilised state , which began with them choosing Mohammed Ali in an almost totally democratic process in 1805 ..The French campain was like a slap on the face to make them awake again , a bit painful but it will awakes you ...

[–] mal karma 13 years ago

"They were both power hungry and and were indifferent to human lives. Do a little research. "

That should be the definition of "politician".

Really, I wouldn't call a high school esssay "research".

"That was a courtesy flush. I'm not actually done yet"

[–] thundersphinx23 7 years ago

Hitler was an idiot. Nazi Germany didn't become so powerful *because* of Hitler. They got so powerful *in spite* of him. And in the end, his idiocy cost them. His underlings and aids told him not to open up a 2nd front, but he did it anyway.

Now Napoleon Bonaparte on the other hand, was a military genius. He only ever lost 2 battles in his entire career, but one of them was due to treachery. He genuinely only lost 1 battle.

[–] stevenackerman69 14 years ago

Napoleon was a dictator. Yeah, maybe you might think he wasn't too bad, but no dictator is good, even if they aren't crazy like Hitler was.

[–] clayjar_azn 14 years ago

Napolean is not shown in a good way by us in the USA. He is considered a ruthless conqueror who crowned himself emperor. He is in the category with Atila the Hun and Ghenghis Khan.

I don't think he was evil like Hitler though.

Me fail English? But, that's unpossible.
http://www.store.fredjung.com

[–] yusef-ghanima 9 years ago

george washington was a dictator, and he was against forming a second party.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] gregmays 13 years ago

>>Is that the general US view of Bonaparte?<<

I think the bias is that our history tends to see him as having rejected the Republic and returned to more or less single man rule. Only slightly better, if at all, than Monarchy. In Britain and America that's seen as social and political retrograde, as opposed to progress. And immediately setting out on military campaigns didn't help.

You have to remember that many Americans, including Jefferson, saw the French Revolution, as similar, though certainly more violent, to our own. Seeing an individual subvert the whole process, was very disturbing. And the British at the time kind of said, "We told you so!!" For Jefferson to believe that the next developments in France would be similar to America, was very naive. Brits, including the Colonists, had a 500 year history of the power of the central government being limited.

Julius Caesar is seen the same way in some circles. Subverting the Republic and going on military campaigns to keep the Public and Senate distracted from what he'd done politically.

And....like it or not, politically, it's quite similar to what Hitler did. The Weimar Republic was replaced with one man rule. And the country became totally absorbed in his military ambitions. No one was going to challenge the power of the Chancellor while the country was at War.

[–] Danusha_Goska 13 years ago

here's the deal: they had to have someone who would be interested in power, who wouldn't be seen as nice, and who would not ruin the lighthearted vibe of the movie.

Stick Hitler in there, and the movie goes way south.

Naploeon was interested in power, not a nice guy, and you have all the short jokes.

and he had a nice ass.

[–] thundersphinx23 7 years ago

Well to be fair, the republic had failed. It was killing people right and left. Napoleon wanted more than anything to bring stability to his beloved country and the other nations, fearing his power, tried to stop him. So he retaliated.

[–] silvercometred1 9 years ago

Napoleon was the first of the three Antichrists that have been predicted to harm mankind (Hitler was the second). So Hell Yeah he was a bad guy!

[–] jmarkoff2 9 years ago

Napoleon had a dark side which is whitewashed out by modern French propaganda. I like very much that this movie considers him a bad guy.

[–] yusef-ghanima 9 years ago

the movie is too much of a comedy to see any one as really bad, he had his up and downs, when he was a revolutionary leader europe worshiped him, but they were disappointed when he became an emperor. but even in his early times, he was married to a masonist and was the first to think of creating is israel, which was really bad.

i mostly will not be able to answer your reply, since marissa mayer hacked my email, no notification

[–] thundersphinx23 7 years ago

Antichrist? WTF? I hope you have taken off that ridiculous tin-foil hat sometime in the 2 years since you posted that nonsense.

[–] GreyHunter 7 years ago

Comparing Napoleon to Hitler is somewhat excessive. Hitler was a monster over and above his ambitions. He engaged in systemic genocide. But Napoleon was power-hungry, dictatorial, megalomaniacal, and out to conquer as much of the world as possible. Generally, these are not qualities that endear a person to posterity. Napoleon is regarded as a 'bad guy' for the same reason Hitler would still be considered a 'bad guy' even if he hadn't engaged in genocide. Few people except those who stand to gain from, or feel a cultural affinity toward, leaders with these characteristics are generally inclined to look favorably upon them. It's just the danger of being a would-be world conqueror -- if you lose, much of the world is going to harbor some pretty strong feelings about your intention to subjugate innocent people by force and aren't going to be shy about saying so. Can you name a would-be world conqueror who doesn't have a bad reputation? Perhaps Alexander the Great, and that's primarily because his adventurin' days were really, really long ago.

If Napoleon had just settled for being king of France, he'd probably still get some flack for taking down a new republic, but he wouldn't likely be remembered with nearly as much hostility as he is.

[–] Stratego (29299) 4 years ago

Napoleon tried to annex every country in freaking Europe, of course he's not a good guy. I'm surprised Custer was portayed as a good-hearted oaf. Didn't he kill some injuns???