What is found criminal and what does not change over time.For instance, Julius Caesar was proud to have massacred the population in the conquest of Gaul 1/3, and had made 1/3 a slave and had subjected 1/3. He was valued as such by the Roman population. In Antiquity and the Middle Ages, committing what we now call war crimes was something to leave you on. Slavery was an ordinary and highly accepted phenomenon for over 10,000 years. Even the Bible applauds genocide in some cases.
Only with what Steven Pinker calls the “humanitarian revolution” in his The Better Angels of our Nature was the committing of such atrocities something that was seen as bad.In the same time, corporal punishment and the often gruesome methods of completing the death penalty disappeared (and the death penalty itself was strongly reduced) and slavery was questioned. In modern times war crimes were also committed, but it was seen that it was rather something to be ashamed of than to be proud of. The perpetrators of the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust therefore tried to keep their deeds as secret as possible.
Napoleon lived just on the fracture plane between the two eras.On the one hand, he was an old-fashioned warlord for whom atrocities were not war crimes yet, but on the other hand he was a child of enlightenment for those who did. You could call Napoleon the first war criminal but also the last warlord from a previous time.
The concept of war crime is actually only legal since the Hague Convention of 1899 and 1907. [1 so I do not know if it is possible to apply this concept retroactively to the Napoleonic Wars.
A well-known painting by Napoleon Bonaparte, painted by Jacques-Louis David (1801) [2
In any case, we can be sure about one thing.
We can conclude with certainty that Napoleon Bonaparte is not comparable to the warlike leaders of the twentieth century, such as Adolf Hitler and perhaps Josef Stalin.
Hitler had actively attempted to eradicate certain types of people.Stalin has committed many crimes in his own country, which were politically tinted. In addition, Stalin had created folk removals. Millions of Poles and Germans were forced to move and leave home and hearth. He had also done so in his own country. Balten, Krimtataren, Germans, Poland, you name it, he has banished them all to distant places.
Napoleon had not done this kind of thing.If you wanted to stick a label on him, I would call him a warlike statesman.
Thank you for asking me this question Cornelis Zandbergen (User-12474665905834568866).I hope this has answered your question.
If you consider Napoleon a war criminal, then every head of state is a field Lord of history that initiates a war.From Alexander the great to general Schwarzkopf they introduce troops that have unnecessary life requirements on both sides. Even the tribal head who has an eye on the goats of the neighboring tribe can be called.
However, We reserve the term war criminal for people who, at the time of war, abuse that war commit crimes that are head and shoulders above the weekday crimes.The atrocities of the Nazis will come to you first. But also American soldiers who were mowing whole Vietnamese villages and burned flat with flame throwers to prevent Vietcong soldiers from falling into that category.
Whether you have to count Napoleon as a general in this is a matter of interpretation.He did not murder genocide, and as far as we know, no villages or cities were unnecessarily murdered in his name. Well, he was a statesman. He set up new governments in the conquered countries. Introduced new legislation and renewed civil law. Which is still used in part. Unfortunately, he was not a diplomat, but someone who wanted to reach with the sword what he achieved. His predecessors in the French Revolution were many more war criminals. There are countless many people at the time of the reign of Terror of Robespierre with the guillotine beheaded who had nothing wrong. A small genocide was committed there. Napoleon was the one who put an end to the political mess in France, which stopped arbitrary death sentences.
He was a dictator, but, as far as I know, has not committed war crimes, for example Atilla de Hun.
Napoleon Bonaparte was already I am not mistaken even more than that.In my opinion he was also a great general, he saw the advantages of-then of time-pioneering logistics and he was part of the cradle of modern accounting.
I find the term war criminal a strange phenomenon anyway.In my opinion, if you are running war and are in a position to be able to use rules, you have not understood how human beings are. Typically something of politicians.
And why shouldn’t he be both
War criminal and state mine do not stand in the way
But as far as I know he has done few things in wars except often win that make him different than others in his time (or nowadays)
Given that he was a war, he was not especially cruel or
So war criminal I don’t know
But he did a grand statesman
He puts on the cradle of large parts of our current right and controlled system and under his reign France became the richest and most moderate country in Europe.
Whether he was a war criminal is very difficult to say but a statesman he was
Napoleon has begun quite a few wars.Starting a war means initiating and directing large-scale murder and (in case of Napoleon) looing. I understand that he has failed to do things that enforce admiration and that he showed great leadership, but that is not a single excuse. Whether he is legally-technically a war criminal, I want to leave it in the middle, but that someone who starts large-scale murder and plunder and leads a criminal of the worst kind is, as far as I am concerned, an absolute fact. Absolute facts are not there very much, but if you do not believe in it, in which can you believe?