top of page
Following an obligatory upgrade of the forum imposed by the developers who maintain the website's programming (Wix.com), the forum has now been moved onto a new system called 'Groups'. Members should still be able to post as usual, by clicking the 'New Forum' tab at the top of the screen. We apologise for the inconvenience. Welcome to the future.
Like
0
2
bottom of page
A matter of perspective:
"he was harsh with both treason...." Rather ironic, from someone who from a British perspective was a treasonous rebel who took up arms against his rightful sovereign.
Had he lost the war of independence (it wasn't a revolution, the machinery of government remained intact), Washington's tarred head would probably have adorned a spike in London. The right and proper fate of a traitor and oath-breaker. He would have then become nothing more than an interesting footnote, as would the young Napoleon if he'd have suffered a fatal wound. History is that fickle.
As I say, a matter of historical perspective. One man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter.
Napoleon a villian?
A villian is someone who commits crimes, and when caught gets imprisoned. You can see why people might confuse him for one. Napoleon committed the worst crime of any historical figure. He gambled once too often and lost. Lost badly and was imprisoned for his trouble.