Napoleon Bonaparte, Roman emperor or Roman wannabe?

History, archaeology, historiography, peoples, and personalities of ancient Rome and the Mediterranean.

Moderator: Aldus Marius

Was he a true Caesar?

Yes
1
14%
In some ways yes, and in others no
1
14%
No
5
71%
 
Total votes : 7

Napoleon Bonaparte, Roman emperor or Roman wannabe?

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Fri May 02, 2008 4:29 pm

I was just watching a special about Napoleon and the thought occurred to me that he was from Corsica an Island with a strong Greco-roman tradition, and he did control Rome, and as an emperor he did claim the title of console.

So, does he count as a roman emperor, or do you simply view him like Mussolini as a roman wannabe who does more harm to the reputation of Rome than good?
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA

Subtlety

Postby Aldus Marius on Fri May 02, 2008 6:24 pm

Salve, mi Tabernari!

Amice, could you add a little nuance to your poll questions? I, for one, would like to have voted in the Rome: Total War poll, but you did not have an option for "I've never played it".

Here, you are actually asking two separate questions: "Is Napoleon a Caesar wannabee?" and "Did he do Rome's rep more harm than good?" Arguments can be made for either side of both propositions. Somewhere in the Everyon there may be a Caesar wannabee who has done Rome's rep more good than harm.


In fide,
Aldus Marius Peregrinus.
User avatar
Aldus Marius
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 2173
Joined: Wed Sep 11, 2002 3:16 am
Location: Within hailing distance

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Fri May 02, 2008 11:32 pm

Well basically my statement was, is him calling himself a roman, something you like or something you don't like?

I was also referring to the title of Caesar, not the actual person.

I guess I should have been more specific.
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA

Postby Marcus Tullius Ioannes on Sat May 03, 2008 2:40 am

Because of his many victories as a general in the field, Napoleon probably merited the military title "Imperator" more than most Roman emperors. And I think post-revolutionary France under him looked to ancient Rome as a model, in the creation of the consulate and then the empire. He was also from an Italian family. Also, he helped create a body of civil law which is still used in much of Europe (and even somewhat in Louisiana).

He would have been a great Roman, I think, but I think of him as more akin to the Italian condotierre like the Medici and the Borgias,who were closer to him in time.
Philosophia est ars vitae
User avatar
Marcus Tullius Ioannes
I. Auxiliary
I. Auxiliary
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Napoleon a Caesar?

Postby Valerius Claudius Iohanes on Sat May 03, 2008 2:51 am

Salvete -

I'm with my cousin, Tullius Ioannes - more of a mercenary, ultimately. Caesar, that is Gaius Iulius, seems to have been exemplary in politics and personal charm, as well as war. Napoleon seems to have been less canny in the personal and political realm. In both cases, they betrayed their governements to seize power for themselves.

In the military arena, Napoleon deserves the laurels. Caesar's luck was that he never faced the kind of massive coalition that Napoleon did; Vercingetorix's revolt lacked the increasing competence that was evident in the alliances that Napoloen faced. Perhaps we should compare Napoleon with Hannibal.

Valete.
Valerius Claudius Iohannes
Curator anno MMDCCLXII
Centurio Honorarius Societatis

:: Adversitas bono viro intelligentiam docet. ::
User avatar
Valerius Claudius Iohanes
Curator
Curator
 
Posts: 674
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2004 4:28 am
Location: Sancti Leandri Oppidum, California Franciscencis, Conpactae Civitates Americae

Postby Marcus Tullius Ioannes on Sat May 03, 2008 3:02 am

Well said, cousin. The comparison with Hannibal is quite appropriate. After all, Napoleon also descended from the Alps into Italy (twice) and won great victories there, which all came to nothing when he was finally defeated.
Philosophia est ars vitae
User avatar
Marcus Tullius Ioannes
I. Auxiliary
I. Auxiliary
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:53 pm
Location: Wisconsin, U.S.A.

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Sat May 03, 2008 3:31 pm

Ahh. good point Hannibal is a better comparison. However we may be underestimating his political tact, considering the fact that he managed to escape exile I am inclined to believe he was at least competent in charm if not quite talented at it.

Its kind of hard for me to compare him with the Borgia's however, the scale of their victories was entirely different. Maybe someone like Charlemagne or Justinian.

One thing's for sure, ultimately he made the same mistake of many famous leaders, his ego grew disproportionate to his talents and he bit off way too much. Granted so did Alexander the great, but Alexander's talents are something that I don't think we can fairly measure.
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA

Postby Gnaeus Dionysius Draco on Thu Aug 07, 2008 11:57 pm

It's probably very late, but I'm going to butt into this issue anyway.

It's an interesting question, but one that also raises the question of what we should consider a "Roman". Did Napoleon regard himself as a Roman? For sure, he drew a lot of inspiration from the Roman Republic/Empire, but following the line of reasoning, you can also state that the Holy Roman Empire was Roman, while the famous joke among historians goes that it was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor a true Empire.

I wouldn't really say he was a "wannabe". He clearly had his own agenda. He wasn't reenacting ancient Rome, he was tyring to tie its grandeur to his own budding empire, and sought ways to legitimate this. In terms of character and style, sure, there definitely were Roman elements, but he was a man of his time more than anything else.
Gn. Dionysius Draco Invictus
User avatar
Gnaeus Dionysius Draco
Curialis
Curialis
 
Posts: 1618
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 8:04 pm
Location: Belgica

Postby Gaius Iulius Tabernarius on Tue Aug 12, 2008 11:29 pm

Good point, a lot of individuals could be roman if we simply define it as acting roman, but then where does that leave us? I tend to think Napoleon was at least more roman than any of his contemporaries. He seamed to have a classicalist agenda. Just based off of his religious views, his choice of dress, and the way he conducted himself in Egypt, going on a major archeology spree. I guess we have to remember it was the age of enlightenment and there was a strong classical element to it. But something about that crown of his...

Image

To add, I found a great documentary on him... its long but epic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dSHQEdgiOQ
"O Tempora! O Mores!!" Cicero
User avatar
Gaius Iulius Tabernarius
II. Legionary
II. Legionary
 
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 9:09 pm
Location: MA, USA


Return to Collegium Historicum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron