> A side note, I really don't get why Napoleon is seen in such bad light.

I’m really surprised that he isn’t more often seen in a bad light. He started a gigantic war, mobilized millions to expand an empire, crowned himself emperor, etc…

When do we draw the line? I think as a society we are very hypocritical and nonsensical in who we venerate. People were having serious discussions about how “offensive” the Lincoln Memorial was… yet nobody is clamoring for removing statues of Napoleon? I’m just not following the logic in any of this.

> Ah, the "a republic isn't a democracy" trope. That debunked so often, I won't even go there here.

Debunked in what way? The founding fathers (to their shame in my view) were explicit in creating a republic system and gave only certain people such as landowners and men the right to vote. Republicanism is a form of democracy, but it stands in stark contrast to what the person you are replying to is talking about which is a “might makes right” 51-49 wins kind of democracy, which if you look at Congress the founders set up explicitly to counteract. Now, the OP may be making a mistake in terminology, but it’s very clear that the founders were against simple majority. Frankly, I have to say I am too, because a 51-49 kind of country quickly falls apart. You can see elements of that at play today.

51-49 falls apart because the 51 can dictate the 49, I assume? Great, then what about having the 49 (as of total vote) having found ways to dictate the 51? That would be even more instable, wouldn't it?

And as far as Napoleon is concerned, he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal. The Napoleonic Wars grew out of the Revolutionary Wars, and those were started, partially, by European Monarchies to contain democratic France. Sure, Napoleon pushed that to the extreme. Equally true is that it was the British Empire that pushed all of the Alliances against Napoleon. That is not nearly as clean cut as WW2 concerning the bad guys.

The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.

> 51-49 falls apart because the 51 can dictate the 49, I assume? Great, then what about having the 49 (as of total vote) having found ways to dictate the 51? That would be even more instable, wouldn't it?

I mean the issue is dictating isn't it? I think the congressional setup in America makes a lot of sense generally speaking, though it's not without faults.

> he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal.

So do we do historical revisionism or not? When do we draw the line? Do we shame people for killing and enslaving Native Americans when that's what people did at the time? I honestly find this strangely confusing.

> The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.

Not sure I follow this comparison all that much. The South lost and erected statues in the southern states. It's not really all that comparable to Napoleon statues in the UK. At least not that I can see.

When exactly did Napoleon exterminate and enslave the people of the countries he "conquered" (he usually defeated them in a decisive battle and then had them sign treaties, he never dissolved, e.g. the Prussian Empire). He did reintroduce slavery in the French colonies, and should be called out for it. As should France and all other countries on their colonial history, and they are.

A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?

Sorry I just disagree, and starting wars and killing hundreds of thousands is pretty comparable to exterminating and enslaving people as far as my moral compass is concerned.

I'm not really here to defend statues or whatever, but I just don't follow the logic in who we decide was a bad man.

> A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?

These are comparable to the US civil war?

IMHO, the Napoleonic Wars were the , given the people involved, inevitable conclusion of the Revolutionary Wars. And those were started by the First Coalition as a reaction to the French Revolution. So just as WW1 it is not all that easy who is responsible for those wars. Just look up the First Coalition for more details.

> A side note, I really don't get why Napoleon is seen in such bad light.

He tried to conquer a bunch of places. That's generally not seen kindly in the modern era.

Also he lost, which generally allows one's opponents to control the narrative.

Which makes you wonder how history would have turned out if Napoleon would have been as stupid to go to Russia. Imagine he would have taken the most powerful army of the time, including staunch (more or less) allies (incl. the Prussians, minor German powers, Austrians) to Spain against Wellington. Interesting what-if. Just proofs that you don't go to war with Russia or try to conquer Afghanistan.