Both men’s accomplishments are very impressive. Napoleon for learning three languages by the age of 9, as well as Thomas-Alexandre Dumas for becoming a four star general despite being an African American born into slavery – at the height of it! Of the two I was most impressed with Thomas-Alexandre Dumas, mainly for his ability to overcome all his impediments incurred since birth. This quote influenced by decision in why I found him more impressive of the two:
“Overwhelmed by 1,000 Austrian troops at a small, crucial bridge, Dumas didn't falter as his troops turned tail and fled.” He's just cutting them down with his saber, and he gets shot and he gets stabbed, but nothing will make him lie down," Reiss says. Reinforcements arrived eventually, …show more content…
I do think if Napoleon did not fight the battle of Waterloo slavery could have potentially abolished slavery earlier, specifically in Europe. It would be difficult to say for the Americas. I also believe meritocracy would have been more prominent throughout Europe, this leading to more efficiency. Since Napoleon was a supporter of selecting based on ability, inefficient nobilities would no longer cause negative externalities on the battle field and in the economy. One thing I felt the writer felt to address was some of the negatives Napoleon reestablished. One being woman becoming less equal than men. If Napoleon did not lose Waterloo I feel this new legislation would hinder the woman’s rights to even a further extent then what they had faced already. For example where Napoleon established this legislation, women could not vote until 1944. If Napoleon ended up defeating Great Britain that could have enhanced women’s suffrage. Since Napoleon failed, women could vote in 1918 in Great Britain. Napoleon winning the battle of waterloo would have its pros and cons in today’s
“Overwhelmed by 1,000 Austrian troops at a small, crucial bridge, Dumas didn't falter as his troops turned tail and fled.” He's just cutting them down with his saber, and he gets shot and he gets stabbed, but nothing will make him lie down," Reiss says. Reinforcements arrived eventually, …show more content…
I do think if Napoleon did not fight the battle of Waterloo slavery could have potentially abolished slavery earlier, specifically in Europe. It would be difficult to say for the Americas. I also believe meritocracy would have been more prominent throughout Europe, this leading to more efficiency. Since Napoleon was a supporter of selecting based on ability, inefficient nobilities would no longer cause negative externalities on the battle field and in the economy. One thing I felt the writer felt to address was some of the negatives Napoleon reestablished. One being woman becoming less equal than men. If Napoleon did not lose Waterloo I feel this new legislation would hinder the woman’s rights to even a further extent then what they had faced already. For example where Napoleon established this legislation, women could not vote until 1944. If Napoleon ended up defeating Great Britain that could have enhanced women’s suffrage. Since Napoleon failed, women could vote in 1918 in Great Britain. Napoleon winning the battle of waterloo would have its pros and cons in today’s