Well if you saw my last post on Napoleon, I gave nothing but good impressions of Napoleon because I’m biased, which I never like to be, so I have decided to continue on Napoleon topic, however this time I’ll be stating the negative points in order to balance things out and in turn, remain fair. Napoleon has has done a lot of good, yes, but one can question his morals by questioning why he did what he did. Perhaps he had a side agenda? Maybe he was trying to gain the respect and loyalty of the people in an attempt to crown himself, and in doing so, claiming ultimate power? This became a valid question/theory when he re-established the very monarchy that his people fought so hard to end in the revolution, and by doing so he began to be looked at as a megalomanical tyrant because he seized absolute power for himself, and he made it so that no one could take the power from him, and thus he could rule forever and since he did not have elections, it was consensual. In doing so he also created the Napoleonic Dynasty in which his family members and children would go on to rule after him, much like the royal family had done. He needlessly sacrificed his own people in his conquest for power in battles like for example in Waterloo he went into battle undermanned and in turn, disadvantaged, which he was confidant in because he had done before and won, but he took a very unneeded risk, and he lost over 28,000 men as a result of his belligerence and megalomania. One can also argue that he only cared for his glory and nothing else which can be seen by the statistics of the return from Moscow. While he did win, when he and his army were returning from Moscow, he was unprepared for the winter, and so he did not have the sufficient provisions for survival in such a harsh climate, and because of this, 100,000 men left Moscow, and only 40,000 men made it back to France, and he showed no care for this loss. He said a lot of things that can be used to show his disregard for his men, like when he said: “I may lose a man, but never a moment.” and “Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die everyday.” This is simply underlining how he viewed his men as merely pawns to his greater goal which is not only to win, but also supremacy. This is why Napoleon is viewed as such a controversial figure, one can be swayed in either direction because of his actions, but I personally think that he was definitely a hero for France, as well as to a lot of others, but there are others that can disagree with me. There is a lot more to Napoleon than what I said of course, but that is up to you to decide whether he was a hero, or a villain.