Napoleon vs. Hitler, Why are they the same? How are they different?

My ancestor was one of the 5 men that caught Napoleon

strangely, I think Napoleon was driven by thoughts of personal glory whereas Hitler (However misguidedly) saw himself as someone to make his country great.

Both subject to narcissistic tendencies, but one more able to realise the truly evil plans than the other.

I think if Hitler had a tomb like Napoleon, it wouldn't be venerated in the same way by as many people.

originally posted by: visitedbythem

My ancestor was one of the 5 men that caught Napoleon

Napoleon surrendered to Captain Frederick Maitland on board HMS Bellerophon on 15th July 1815.

At 07:00 on 14 July a vessel approached the Bellerophon. The Comte de Las Cases was again on board, this time accompanied by General L’Allarand.

They had a letter from Napoleon, wishing to discuss the terms of General Bonaparte’s surrender. After leaving Bellerophon, Comte de Las Cases returned at 19:00 the same day with a letter from Napoleon’s General, Count Bertrand revealing that Napoleon was currently on Isle D’Aix and fully prepared to surrender.

Napoleon’s arrival on the Bellerophon is recorded in the log for the ship dated 15 July 1815

blog.nationalarchives.gov.uk...

One of the problems of the third reich was that Albert Speer revolutionized what we would call logistics. On the plus side for them, Speer correctly foresaw the Allied bombing campaigns of the war's end, and built all new factories in underground, hard-to-locate areas. On the minus side, he and his staff believed that the Germans could win a war based on fighting out of inventory. Once American manufacturing power got going, the Americans and Allies would always outproduce the Axis. That was a issue apart from strategy and tactics.

Jesus was not the only one who tried to overthrow the MONEYMONGERS...and he will not be the last.

One parallel is that both men came to power with armies that were newly reformed, and and contained lots of open-minded junior officers.

The republican reforms of the French army were put in place as Napoleon was coming to power. The French uniform was simplified, social class was no longer the key to an officer's post, the French had begun industrializing cannon and gunpowder production. In addition, French regimental command was willing to adopt a fighting column, rather than in 4 rows of men lined up parallel to the main line of resistance like a Greek phalanx. And the army developed new categories of cavalry units, based on Hussars, that were allowed to operate independently of infantry support, allowing for deep encirclement and disrupting enemy supply.

The German army of the 1930s had undergone its own reform, forced upon it by the Treaty of Versailles. The German army had two parallel command structures, with the non-coms elected by their own men. small unit commanders were given total control, and were issued objectives, rather than being commanded as to HOW to accomplish the larger objectives.
The army was also experimenting with new weapons and tactics. In response to the disastrous trench warfare of WWI, ( which Von Hindenburg developed after studying the US Civl war battles of Fredricksburg, Gettysburg, and Second Manassas.), the wehrmact had mechanized units that overcame the limits imposed by horse-drawn supply wagons for forward units. The germans were experimenting with different types of tanks, lighter and more mobile than French tanks which were basically tractor-mounted cannons. The Germans developed bicycle-mounted forward troops, motorcycle infantry, and seriously specialized engineering units.

They also used small unit communications that had never existed before. Ever since Napoleon, the order of battle was infantry in collumns in the center, with artillery on the flanks, guarded by cavalry looking to envelop the enemy flank. In the nazi Wehrmacht, artillery was spread out and could be requested by local unit commanders, who could call in objectives. The 88mm, which was originally an anti-aircraft cannon, was so useful the germans put it on everything, from submarines to railroad cars to anti-tank tracked vehicles (in effect, the first armored troop carriers).
Rommel, Guderian and Hoth were all new commanders of mechanized units, who understood in ways no one else did, how powerful tank formations could be when coordinated with heavy artillery.

Hitler and Napoleon were both commanders of the leading army of their age, and their enemies had to play catch-up and learn to imitate the new technologies and organization of the more efficient belligerent.

a reply to: SprocketUK

I could star that post but it wouldn’t do your opinion justice
As a German wanting justice from the terrible deal Germany suffered after the First World War
Altruistic German wanting justice for wrongs, it’s an interesting premise

Yes a narcissist psychopath but driven by more than personal glory, Napoleon seems like a self promotion

Never trust those who wrote history though
Great post

a reply to: visitedbythem

I have a medal for a great grandfather who fought in every English battle against Napoleons army. He died in the battle before Waterloo
The medal has every action the British undertook Including the Pyrenees if I remember correctly

Foot soldier not naval

There's another connecting link between them (for those who know a broader sweep of history).
That is, their relationship with the Roman Empire as revived by Charlemagne.
Ever since the death of Charlemagne, the Germans and the French have had different views about which nation are his real heirs.
Officially, the German "Empire" established by Otto was a continuation of Charlemagne's. The claim to be the Roman Empire was nominally dependent on possession of Rome, though the German presence in Italy had waned by the end of the Middle Ages.
However, the French kings always thought they had a better claim to be Emperors. One of them, Francis I, put himself forward as a candidate at the famous Imperial election in which he and Henry VIII of England were outbribed by Charles V.

It was Napoleon's occupation of Rome that really opened up the way for him to declare himself Emperor. What he was doing was fulfilling the mediaeval French dream of transferring the "Roman" Empire from Germany to France. In keeping with this, he obliged the German version of the Empire to dissolve itself.

Conversely, when the revived French Empire of Napoleon III came crashing down in the war of 1870, Bismarck chose that psychological moment to stage the inauguration of the new German Empire, rubbing salt in the wound by holding the ceremony at Versailles. So the Empire which had been transferred from Germany to France was now being transferred back to Germany. Like the Ashes, but with more bloodshed.

Hitler made himself part of this sequence by labelling his own regime as the Third Reich. That is, the third Empire, counting Otto's and Bismarck's as the first and the second. And quietly ignoring the Napoleonic version.

im pretty sure both were at battle with the bankers. both were sociopaths (as are MOST world leaders, btw. MOST!)
hittler did not start w2, there are news headlines which state who declared war on him, and then he went nuts.

the story of w2, of course, is elboratorated, but no matter what, that guy sent his people to death aka sociopath. but so did churchilll, rooosevelt, etc. all of them scumbags.

a reply to: DISRAELI

Hmm, so much we don’t know
That’s very interesting history

Again, a star just doesn’t give your post justice

Napoleon had cooler moonboots than Hitler and also a llama.

a reply to: dantanna

Both Churchill and Roosevelt were given a situation they had to deal with. Roosevelt probably saw grander plans but Churchill probably just wanted the UK to survive
I don’t see the scumbags who stopped European slaughter you proclaim

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Napoleon had cooler moonboots than Hitler and also a llama.

Had a cool hat but a really crappy navy

originally posted by: dantanna

hittler did not start w2, there are news headlines which state who declared war on him, and then he went nuts.

Who annexed/invaded the Sudetenland, Poland and Czechoslovakia? Churchill? Roosevelt?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It's ats, you have to leave commonsense at the door. Hitler was innocent
Poland started the war because they didn't defend themselves

a reply to: AlienView

One had a rather good Brandy associated with his name and the other, well there is a special brew candidate if ever there was one.

Its really Cognac or Brandy named after the town in France all the same as opposed to the actual person.

napolean & alexander. there aren't two hitlers.

generally, food is named after right wingers

You got your Caesar salad.
Napoleon, the pastry
Bismark
Kaiser Roll
chateaubriand
General Tso chicken
Hamantaschen

originally posted by: seeker1963
Are the Chinese any better off now with their current Communist government?

Er, considering the Chinese Communist Party has presided over more misery and death of their own people, I think not. The Japanese were brutal, but Mao killed an estimated 65 million of his own countrymen.

But we digress, this is about the tyrants Napoleon and Hitler. They were basically the same, and the violent mayhem was a feature of their careers. Napoleon may have been a military genius, but he lost the battle that counted - Waterloo. He also lost campaigns, like the Peninsular War and failed to defeat the British. Hitler was not a military leader, but he had exceptional leaders under him (as did Napoleon), but he also lost campaigns. In both cases both these tyrants were bought down by alliances created to to defeat them.