Who Is The Greatest Person Of French Nationality or Ancestry In History?

[Merlot]

Hello all,

I can't believe I'm not nominated...

Best hanging judge poll is in May...lol.

Of the top three vote receivers (not counting Martin) I don't see how anyone could vote for Napoleon. The temptation to view him as a national paragon of shining glory may be understandable, but when more thoroughly examined he was a typical self-glorying conqueror who finally buried whatever real democratic promise might have come out of the "Revolution". The code Napoleon may have made all classes equal, but it also promoted firm patriarchal dominance in the same way the Romans did and was more or less an updated form of old Roman Law. Napoleon did not even participate in forming it, though he did review and revise it.

As a military genius he matches up well with Hannibal, Alexander, Caesar, and Genghis Khan. But as a great man of the people, meaning what he really achieved for or contributed to his country and the well-being of the people, he fails. Any benefits the legal and governmental reforms generated under him may have had, they were subverted by his willingness to take power for himself, go to war and the economic and human price of it. Whereas Washington stopped the army from seizing control of the government Napoleon used his grenadiers to seize it.

At least William the Conqueror never killed off the chance of democracy. There wasn't any. He brought order, stability, and unified law...though ruthlessly to support his own power and keep it for himself and his progeny.

Unlike the other two the benefits of Pasteur's life work are incontestably positive and for all human kind...rather than being necessary for maintaining the power of an individual over all subjects. Countries and people should be proud of his kind...not conquerors. I'll never understand why so many feel pride in those who take lives and destroy promise over those who enhance both.

Just my view...Go Louuuuuis,

Merlot

 

[Mod 11]

LOL!! Straight from Normandy and here since early 1600!

But I guess as a Mod, I'm disqualified anyhow. Can't win them all!

As far as smileys, it's not because we don't tell Fred at every occasion, don't worry!

Ok, if Mod 11 can validate his French heritage can we nominate him into the poll???

Hell - I'll do it if he gets us some real Smileys!!! <insert rolleyes smiley here>

 

[XXXClusive Agency]

Lol

My driver just told me about this tread ....so funny cant believe i beaten Maurice Richard LOL

ide like to thank my mom and dad ...... joke !!!


Eagerbever next time you are in town i will be happy to give you the chance to beat me

 

[Trenus]

I couldn't resist getting into this thread.

I'm surprised nobody considered Charlemagne. Why? Well, a big reason why all of Europe is not Muslim today is because Charlemagne defeated the European Muslim invasion. I am not being pro or anti Muslim. I am simply submitting the idea or notion that Europe would have been different without a Charlemagne. There is no question about this. He was no saint in the sense that he was ruthless. Nevertheless, he stopped Muslim expansion in Europe, whether for the better or not, just like Dracul (yes Count Dracula), even more ruthless, did many centuries later. I am also surprised that I don't see Clovis. Although he makes Charlemagne and Dracul combined, look like alter boys, the reason why France probably exists today is because of Clovis. He made Paris the center of the Frank kingdom, which later became France.

Now Napolean is a different animal. Technically a French citizen since Corsica became part of France one month after he was born, in his early years, he didn't consider himself "French". In fact, up until his death, he spoke French with an Italian accent. Yes, the man had a huge ego and did look out for No.1, himself, which was the opposite of Washington, a completely selfless, dedicated man, to the point that even Napolean himself, on his death bed, acknowledged the fact that the French wanted him, Napolean, "to be like Washington". However, he did accomplish an incredible objective, a turning point in European and possibly world history. Europe would probably have been ruled by monarchs without a Napolean.

Why? The only country in the world where the idea that anybody, even a neighbor citizen, should actually have the power to govern its citizens, was the USA. Europe at that time, felt that this silly idea could never work and that eventually, democracy, as we know it today and take for granted, was doomed to fail. This thinking was common knowledge until a guy like Napoleon came along and proved them all wrong. Like the USA, having the authority to govern should not be based from what family you're born into, but from you capabilities. In short, the best should rise to the top, regardless of family background. Napolean lived by this concept and it spread throughout Europe, thus changing the thinking at that time. This thinking was so radical, that all of Europe banded together against him in order to crush him and this dangerous philosophy. I mean, are you really let just about anybody get into the "old boys network"? Yes, he was defeated. However, the bottom line is, in order for monarchs to hold on to power, they were forced to give some power to common people like me and you, in order to ensure that a guy like Napoleon would never again come along and excite the common person. Either way, however you may feel about Napolean, it's clear that his notion or idea of putting competent people in positions of authority, regardless of family background, changed Europe, and by implication, probably the world. Later on in life, he considered himself French, which is why I voted for him in this poll, since this thread is all about significant French figures.

 

[EagerBeaver]

Trenus,

I included Napoleon in the poll for all the reasons you mentioned, as well as others. He was an extremely enlightened thinker for his time, not just militarily but socially and politically and economically. It's interesting that the Italians, French and Corsicans all claim Napoleon as one of their own. What matters most to me is what Napoleon considered himself to be, and there is no historical question whatsoever that he considered himself to be French and this is proven by his dying words.

I had thought that I posted this poll with a 30 day time limit. In any event I want the poll to close by 6 pm tomorrow night at which time I will reveal who I voted for, and the top 3 in my mind. Can the Moderators edit the poll and impose a deadline for voting as requested? I cannot seem to edit it accordingly.

Anyway make sure your vote is in!

 

[Trenus]

Well, EagerBeaver, the Italians may have a point regarding Napolean. His favorite dish was pasta with tomato sauce and his idol was Julius Ceasar Also, during his Italian campaigns, he stressed his Italian heritage during his public speeches and believe it or not, his was a "mammas boy". His mother was everything to him....Lots of Italian traits in that La mamma and family were of paramount importance, not to mention he was passionate with a quick temper, and spoke French with an Italian accent.

But anyways....You never know with Napolean. He would say and do anything to achieve his ends. Quite a charismatic character!

 

[Merlot]

I couldn't resist getting into this thread.

I'm surprised nobody considered Charlemagne.

Europe would probably have been ruled by monarchs without a Napolean.

Yes, the man had a huge ego and did look out for No.1, himself, which was the opposite of Washington, a completely selfless, dedicated man, to the point that even Napolean himself, on his death bed, acknowledged the fact that the French wanted him, Napolean, "to be like Washington". However, he did accomplish an incredible objective, a turning point in European and possibly world history. Europe would probably have been ruled by monarchs without a Napolean.

Like the USA, having the authority to govern should not be based from what family you're born into, but from you capabilities. In short, the best should rise to the top, regardless of family background. Napolean lived by this concept and it spread throughout Europe, thus changing the thinking at that time. This thinking was so radical, that all of Europe banded together against him in order to crush him and this dangerous philosophy. I mean, are you really let just about anybody get into the "old boys network"? Yes, he was defeated. However, the bottom line is, in order for monarchs to hold on to power, they were forced to give some power to common people like me and you, in order to ensure that a guy like Napoleon would never again come along and excite the common person. Either way, however you may feel about Napolean, it's clear that his notion or idea of putting competent people in positions of authority, regardless of family background, changed Europe, and by implication, probably the world. Later on in life, he considered himself French, which is why I voted for him in this poll, since this thread is all about significant French figures.

Hello Trenus,

Yes, I should defintely have included Charlemange. I thought I had.

Some of your statements about Napoleon are not quite true and the truth points to his failures. He may have implemented the philosophy up to a point that leaders should be chosen or raised up through ability, but besides using force to stop the revolutionary process and seize ultimate power for himself, he also appointed several family members as rulers thus subverting the merit philosophy he seems to have conveniently supported as a strategy to raise himself. Cases in point: he made his brother Louis King of Holland, his brother Jerome was appointed the king of Westphalia (Germany/Prussia), his brother Joseph was King of Naples then king of Spain, his sister Caroline Bonaparte married Marshal Joachim, who became king of Naples after Joseph left for Spain, his sister Elisa was married to Prince of Lucca and made grand duchess of Tuscany, his brother Lucien, helped him overthrow the government and establish a Roman-style consulate to take over France, and finally in 1808 Napoleon annexed the Papal states and locked up Pope Pius XVII. He declared his young son, Napoléon François Joseph Charles Bonaparte, King of Rome. Napoleon also appointed his step-son, Eugene de Beauharnais as viceroy of the Kingdom of Italy. All hardly in keeping with his alleged commitment to a merit philosophy.

Much of these facts are from: http://weuropeanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/napoleons_family_rules_europe

In fact, it's interesting how he admired Caesar because that's who he acted like. Had he really believed in advancement through merit or done what Washington did and step aside to be an inspiration and guide for all of that which is beyond selfishness I could have called him truly great. But wannabe dictators are a dime a million. Maybe Napoleon's partial implementation generated a movement for leadership through ability, but he was far too selfish to carry it through to the top. In the end, he used the merit philosophy to empower his family, progeny, and especially himself. He was an incredible General, and an incredible disappointment enlightening France to serve himself.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[hungry101]

Trenus and Merlot, I have read that the French military, dating back to the aristocracy, promoted based on merit. In time, the middle class/working class gained control over the military. This is what led to the overthrow of the aristocracy in the first place. This was described in a recent book that I read by the title of "Hell Riders; the true story of the charge of the Light Brigade" by Terry Brighton. Brighton illustrated how the British officer corp obtained their commissions by buying them and going on half pay. These gentlemen wouldn't even drill with their command until they made major or colonel. They looked down their nose at any officer that had previous experience in India. The reason for this, Brighton explained, was so that the commoners wouldn't gain control over the military and then knock off the monarchy. The book says that promoting based on merit is what led to the downfall of the French monarchy.

BTW I voted for Pasteur for the same reason Merlot did. http://gardenofpraise.com/ibdpast.htm However, if Napoleon wins this all important poll I wouldn't argue. Napoleonic tactics were revolutionary. All the manuals on tactics were in French for about 50-75 years after Napoleon. At the West Point Military Academy in 1846 a cadet was required to take a full four years of only one course of study. Can you guess what that course was? The French language of course.

Now if Martin wins this poll will be a travesty. Unless he can revolutionize the hobby by requiring escorts to arrive at the appointment with their glamor lingerie under their clothes.

 

[cloudsurf]

I couldn't resist getting into this thread.

I'm surprised nobody considered Charlemagne..

Post # 7 in this thread.

 

[Merlot]

BTW I voted for Pasteur for the same reason Merlot did. http://gardenofpraise.com/ibdpast.htm However, if Napoleon wins this all important poll I wouldn't argue. Napoleonic tactics were revolutionary. All the manuals on tactics were in French for about 50-75 years after Napoleon. At the West Point Military Academy in 1846 a cadet was required to take a full four years of only one course of study. Can you guess what that course was? The French language of course.

Now if Martin wins this poll will be a travesty. Unless he can revolutionize the hobby by requiring escorts to arrive at the appointment with their glamor lingerie under their clothes.

Hello Hungry 101,

True that Napoleon was one of the 10 most brilliant military men of history. His corps system became legendary and his strategies were heavily studied at West Point for many years. There is simply no disputing his genius as a tacitican and strategist. However, he had studied others in great depth like..."Jacques Antoine Hypolite, Comte de Guibert was one of these influential military thinkers. He proposed the use of citizen armies which, because of their pride and courage, "...would have nothing to fear from the mercenary armies of other countries." He advocated the exploitation of mobility and declared that positions would necessarily become less important. More importantly for the subject at hand, Guibert called for the organization of armies into permanent divisions capable of supporting themselves to facilitate the necessary mobility. [10] Bonaparte "...read and reread the famous Essai général de Tactique ...which first appeared in 1772 when the author [Guibert] was only twenty-nine." What was astounding about Napoleon was his application, extension, and perfection of this theory into the corps system.

Napoleon and many others were also beholden to Gustavus Adolphus known as king Gustav II Adolf or Gustav Adolf the Great of Sweden, 1594-1632, a brilliant military organizer and innovator 150 years or so before Napoleon's military career. http://www.carpenoctem.tv/military/gustavus.html He "instituted permanent units, assigned a fixed chain of command, and established a philosophy of cooperation among all combatants." Just as Napoleon later did he was innovative in the use of supply lines, bases, and his mutually supporting infantry, artillery, and cavalry tactics were perhaps the first blitzkrieg style use of military forces and the "first truly professional army in history." For this he was called the "Father of Combined Tactics". That doesn't diminish what Napoleon accomplished militarily, it's just that his organization and tactics weren't totally original.

Cheers,

Merlot

 

[EagerBeaver]

The poll has closed. The winner is Martin of XXXtase. The winner among the historical figures is Louis Pasteur.

I was one of 5 who voted for William the Conqueror. My top 3 when I started the poll were William The Conqueror, Napoleon Bonaparte and Louis Pasteur. I then narrowed to Napoleon and William. In the final analysis I voted for William as he was the only Frenchmen to ever conquer England and in doing so, had an enormous and long lasting political and cultural impact on the country. All of the others were deserving of being in the conversation. I included Martin of XXXtase as something of a joke, and he went and won the poll.

 

[benxxx]

I included Martin of XXXtase as something of a joke, and he went and won the poll.

well... napoleon or william the conqueror never got any of us laid...