>Napoleon? Yep that guy was evil incarnate >Melvyn: I never understood why people like him>British Guest: Same hereLmao why are Anglos like this?
Post a radio history show you think is good then?
>>17436110Napoleonic was literally one of the most evil men at the time though. He was an open degenerate, overthrew the centuries long legacy of monarchy in France, weakened cultural institutions, took power away from the church, and did most of it to appease lesser nobles. Culturally speaking I think France never really recovered from the revolution and it would have been better for it to end up as a constitutional monarchy rather than a Republic. He was also an extremely aggressive expansionist and got greedy with territory. Really he made even more costly mistakes than Louis XVI because of the upheaval his the revolution and its after-effects.Unlike him, Wellesley didn't have a massive ego and was able to put his own personal interests and vanity aside for greater goals, and realized that the safety and security of the Empire was of more value than most anything else. He definitely had enough influence that he could have caused major damage to Britain if he had wanted to, maybe even start his own revolt, but he saw long term prosperity as a positive and in general was a much more patient leader.
>>17436110Jews are one hundred times more evil than him, but you will never see or hear any mainstream media talking about
>>17436110>200 years later>Anglos are still obsessed with Napoleon
>>17436110>Lmao why are Anglos like this?He humiliated them over and over again and the only response they could come up with is make another coalition throw more bodies at him.
>>17436110>>17437729Anglos are like jews but less successful.
>>17436476>Wellesley didn't have a massive egoYou brits don't even know anything about you heroes? Really?
Still the best history podcast by far.
