Wanta 1
Joel Wanta
Mr Nagis
World History
10/20/15
The Downfall of Napoleon
Napoleon was a great general, but his greatest fault came from inside. “Napoleon, supreme egoist that he was, ignored the significance of the omens until he and his host were completely and irrevocably committed to an undertaking that was doomed. Never did the gods punish hubris more severely.” (Kroll 117) As said by M. Duke of Fezensac, a professional solider and officer, while talking about Napoleon’s march on Russia. Napoleon’s ultimate downfall came from hubris. “Hubris, n. Presumption, orig. towards the gods; pride, excessive self-confidence.”(“The Merriam-Webster Dictionary”). This little thing, hubris, can bring down an entire army and era of rule as it did for Napoleon. …show more content…
He first showed his knowledge of war at the siege of Toulon, and when he stopped the rising of Vendemiaire, and his success was rewarded by being made commander of Italy. After many campaigns and victories Napoleon showed that he didn’t need technological advances to win, but was able to use his superior strategies. He was made First Consul of France in 1799 and by 1811 made a great empire, the Napoleonic Empire. (“Napoleon”) Then Napoleon marched his army of 500,000 men into Moscow, Russia and only came back with Wanta 2
20,000, while also losing his empire. (Kroll) “Explanations for the disaster include poor planning, unusually bad weather, insightful leadership on the opposing side, and plain bad luck. … Almost all accounts of the campaign include a recognition of the role played by hubris.” (Kroll 117) The defeat has always been given to the hubris of Napoleon, the reason being to feed his
Joel Wanta
Mr Nagis
World History
10/20/15
The Downfall of Napoleon
Napoleon was a great general, but his greatest fault came from inside. “Napoleon, supreme egoist that he was, ignored the significance of the omens until he and his host were completely and irrevocably committed to an undertaking that was doomed. Never did the gods punish hubris more severely.” (Kroll 117) As said by M. Duke of Fezensac, a professional solider and officer, while talking about Napoleon’s march on Russia. Napoleon’s ultimate downfall came from hubris. “Hubris, n. Presumption, orig. towards the gods; pride, excessive self-confidence.”(“The Merriam-Webster Dictionary”). This little thing, hubris, can bring down an entire army and era of rule as it did for Napoleon. …show more content…
He first showed his knowledge of war at the siege of Toulon, and when he stopped the rising of Vendemiaire, and his success was rewarded by being made commander of Italy. After many campaigns and victories Napoleon showed that he didn’t need technological advances to win, but was able to use his superior strategies. He was made First Consul of France in 1799 and by 1811 made a great empire, the Napoleonic Empire. (“Napoleon”) Then Napoleon marched his army of 500,000 men into Moscow, Russia and only came back with Wanta 2
20,000, while also losing his empire. (Kroll) “Explanations for the disaster include poor planning, unusually bad weather, insightful leadership on the opposing side, and plain bad luck. … Almost all accounts of the campaign include a recognition of the role played by hubris.” (Kroll 117) The defeat has always been given to the hubris of Napoleon, the reason being to feed his